Subject: [iucg] IETF IPR

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:53:02 +0200

Dear IUsers,

Some of you have protested, in private mails, against my position, 
which is to stop my facilitation of most IUCG activity (and of the 
[email-masked] mailing list) while waiting for the IAB response 
to my appeal. A recent mail from Marshall Eubanks may help you better 
understand exactly why.

Marshall is responsible for the IETF Trust. He wanted us to remove 
our logo from our site because it includes the IETF logo and name, 
thereby denying us the right to their "fair use" (when you comment 
on, study, criticize, teach, help, etc. a protected process) in order 
to illustrate exactly what we are: IETF deliverable contributing 
users. For the time being, my response was copied to the IETF Chair, 
which explained that we were respecting the "fair use" clause as 
documented in the IETF rules, and it suggested waiting for the IAB 
response to know better.

The reason why all of this is this way is that the IETF protects the 
copyright of its documents. As Contributing IUsers, the few of us are 
certainly interested in helping the IETF Standardization process 
towards a possible non-defined "better inside internet", but we are 
first motivated by our own "better outside use of the Internet" and 
we tend to believe that that will also result from a bold networkish 
copywish attitude based upon public domain contributions.

This is not prevented by the IETF rules (our contributions are of the 
same nature as non-commercially funded governments' contributions 
that are sought by IAB RFC 3869). However, we need to let this known 
and to add our own license to our documents, which is something that 
has to be approved by the IAB (then considering us as an external 
SDO), or to be supported by an adequate alternate stream that would 
most probably have to be decided on by an IAB RFC. Since there are 
currently three alternate streams in the IETF documentation process ( 
for IAB, IRTF, and Independent Contributors), the question is up to 
the IAB to decide: should we use the Independent Contributor Stream 
even though we are supported by aN IETF non-WG mailing list, or 
should there be a specific Internet User stream, or should we 
transform the IUCG as a liaison with a specific Internet Use SDO 
sponsored by the independent @large community?

The first practical issue is the IETF RFC rigidity and lack of clear 
and comprehensive content structure, while everyone can use and 
modify a public domain document. We are not so much interested in 
specific RFCs, but in a constantly tuned or updated, and stably 
structured, how-to/user guide.

The second one is the "IETF RFC 1958/RFC 3439/IDNA2008 Internet" 
architectural border as it is now to be perceived according to the 
IAB. So far, we believe that IDNA2008 deals with the "inbound",  that 
IDNA2010 should address the "outbound", and that IDNA2012 should 
cover its "roundbound" issues of the IUI (Internet Use Interface)

If we would like all of this to be technically, architecturally, and 
technologically clear, it must first be organizationally clear. As 
you have observed, TLR and RFCs have established the IAB as the focal 
point where these issues are consistently and coherently addressed. 
This is why we need to give them the possibility of an efficient 
(better Internet/better Internet use) freeride strategy on the 
matter. This is the prerquisite for us to knowledgeably investigate 
what may result in the best return for ourselves and our fellow users.

jfc

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:33:44 -0400

JFC:

> Dear IUsers,
> 
> Some of you have protested, in private mails, against my position, which
> is to stop my facilitation of most IUCG activity (and of the
> [email-masked] mailing list) while waiting for the IAB response to
> my appeal. A recent mail from Marshall Eubanks may help you better
> understand exactly why.
> 
> Marshall is responsible for the IETF Trust. He wanted us to remove our
> logo from our site because it includes the IETF logo and name, thereby
> denying us the right to their "fair use" (when you comment on, study,
> criticize, teach, help, etc. a protected process) in order to illustrate
> exactly what we are: IETF deliverable contributing users. For the time
> being, my response was copied to the IETF Chair, which explained that we
> were respecting the "fair use" clause as documented in the IETF rules,
> and it suggested waiting for the IAB response to know better.

I do not think that this accurately describes the letter from Marshall.
 I believe the issue is that you have made a derivative of the IETF logo.

Further, the logo issue and IETF Trust copyright on RFCs have nothing to
do with each other. The logo issue has to do with trademark protection.
 The IETF logo has been registered, and the IETF Trust has received
legal guidance on the steps that must be taken to protect that trademark.

Contributions to the IETF follow the rules as described in the NOTE
WELL. See: http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html

The NOTE WELL is not long, and it points all IETF contributors to the
rules for making contributions to the IETF.

> certainly interested in helping the IETF Standardization process towards
> a possible non-defined "better inside internet", but we are first
> motivated by our own "better outside use of the Internet" and we tend to
> believe that that will also result from a bold networkish copywish
> attitude based upon public domain contributions.
> 
> same nature as non-commercially funded governments' contributions that
> are sought by IAB RFC 3869). However, we need to let this known and to
> add our own license to our documents, which is something that has to be
> approved by the IAB (then considering us as an external SDO), or to be
> supported by an adequate alternate stream that would most probably have
> to be decided on by an IAB RFC. Since there are currently three
> alternate streams in the IETF documentation process ( for IAB, IRTF, and
> Independent Contributors), the question is up to the IAB to decide:
> should we use the Independent Contributor Stream even though we are
> supported by aN IETF non-WG mailing list, or should there be a specific
> Internet User stream, or should we transform the IUCG as a liaison with
> a specific Internet Use SDO sponsored by the independent @large community?

As a member of the IAB, this is the first indication that you are
considering work outside the four existing RFC streams.  If this is your
desire, I suggest that you formally approach the IAB very promptly.

> The first practical issue is the IETF RFC rigidity and lack of clear and
> comprehensive content structure, while everyone can use and modify a
> public domain document. We are not so much interested in specific RFCs,
> but in a constantly tuned or updated, and stably structured, how-to/user
> guide.

RFCs are freely available to all.  The IETF standards process must be
followed to make changes to Standards-Track documents.  That is
necessary to manage a consensus process.  I find it very had to believe
that the Internet community would be served by flexible modification
structures.

> architectural border as it is now to be perceived according to the IAB.
> So far, we believe that IDNA2008 deals with the "inbound",  that
> IDNA2010 should address the "outbound", and that IDNA2012 should cover
> its "roundbound" issues of the IUI (Internet Use Interface)

I have no idea what "roundbound" means.

I have told you in the past, and I repeat it here, that your use of
"IDNA" to mean something different than it means to the IETF community
is making it far more difficult for you to communicate.  I strongly
encourage you to select a name without that baggage for your activities.

> technologically clear, it must first be organizationally clear. As you
> have observed, TLR and RFCs have established the IAB as the focal point
> where these issues are consistently and coherently addressed. This is
> why we need to give them the possibility of an efficient (better
> Internet/better Internet use) freeride strategy on the matter. This is
> the prerquisite for us to knowledgeably investigate what may result in
> the best return for ourselves and our fellow users.

I have no idea what "freeride strategy" means.

Russ Housley
IETF Chair

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 10:31:44 -0400

Dear Sirs;

> I believe the issue is that you have made a derivative of the IETF logo.

That is exactly correct. 

> legal guidance on the steps that must be taken to protect that trademark.

That is also correct. My letter purely concerns trademark issues.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:46:42 +0200

Dear Russ,
comments/responses embedded in the tetx.

>  I believe the issue is that you have made a derivative of the IETF logo.

Correct. And as I explained,  IMHO this derivative work abides by the 
fair-use rules.

>rules for making contributions to the IETF.

The NOTE WELL is not precise enough. We are interested in the IETF 
Trust copyright inbound/outbound rules from RFC and TLP. Marshall's 
position shows that "fair-use" is not enough for him.  His suggestion 
to formally concert over the IUCG logo, is for us a good 
example/warning that we should also formally concert over the copyright issues.

>desire, I suggest that you formally approach the IAB very promptly.

I did. The response to my appeal will tell us if this is necessary or not.

>that the Internet community would be served by flexible modification

We are talking here of the Internet Users community. A question 
technically raised by IDNA2008, the IESG has not addressed and the 
IAB will answer (in addressing it or in failing to address it) is to 
know if the IETF considers that the Internet and IETF deliverables 
Users Community and the Internet Community are the same community or not.

Basically, if they may have or not the same reading of what the 
Internet (down to the last bit) is.

>I have no idea what "roundbound" means.

The "roundbound" neologism tries to refer to all what 
"inbound"  (towards internal system designers) and "outbound" 
(towards external users) do not refer to: what is specific 
(internally circular) to the peripheral smart IUI (Internet Use 
Interface). Please note that I make a difference between IUI which is 
implied by IDNA2008 and the Interplus as an architecture for that IUI.

>encourage you to select a name without that baggage for your activities.

Russ, I will refer to the IETF Journal. "The IAB is working on a 
document about internationalization-draft-iab-idn-encoding-that 
inspired the discussion led by John Klensin, Stuart Cheshire, and 
Dave Thaler. - Internationalization "is understood moderately well by 
a fairly small number of experts, most of whom end up realizing how 
little we actually understand," John said at the beginning of the 
talk. "But it affects a large number of protocols, a large number of 
people, and it should affect virtually everything we're doing in the IETF."

Let permit me to disagree with your statement. I do not know what 
IDNA means: this is up to the IAB to document it. I am interested in 
supporting the Intersem. All I know for sure from the reason why we 
reached the IDNA2008 consensus, from Lisa's questions, and from the 
expectations one may have from the current IAB Draft I certainly 
support, is that the IDNA moderately well understood by a small 
number of experts most of whom end up realizing how little they 
actually understand has certainly nothing to do with anything the 
IETF community has ever discussed.

The question precisely is: "does the IDNA area - i.e. the connection 
between DNS and users applications - belongs or not to the IETF 
scope?".  The IESG answered "no" in not wanting Lisa's questions to 
be addressed and in not responding/commenting my ITLD Manager 
questions/solutions. Namely, how two quasi orthogonal architectures 
like IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 should be  jointly used.

The ML-DNS is the response to the users needs, I announced I will 
document as 100% interoperable with IDNA2008. This was at the very 
beginning of the WG/IDNABIS once Vint officially answered that he did 
wanted to stay within the limits of the Charter and did not consider 
the WG/IDNABIS had to go that far, or even to consider its 
preparation. We disputed when I opposed that the WG could block the 
further ML-DNS. This eventually lead to the "Mapping" consensual document.

The WG/IDNABIS documents are 100% ML-DNS ready.

>I have no idea what "freeride strategy" means.

IDNA2008 means a dramatic change in the understanding of the Internet 
as a component of the world digital ecosystem. This is equivalent to 
the switch from the heliocentric (networkcentric) to the cosmocentric 
(personcentric - more than user because of the permitted support of 
the semantic stratum) vision of the universe. It means that the 
development priority of the "Internet/Intersem" has switched from 
"growth" (larger and larger) to "multiplication" (more and more 
diversified). This did exist in the architecture but was considered 
at the fringe, not in the fringe. This has now clarified because in 
one of the typical area we freed from outside (Unicode) and from 
inside (mapping in the protocol). The "Mapping" WG/IDNABIS 
illustration document is the reason why we were bluntly able to 
switch from different determined oppositions to Vint Cerf, to a full 
consensus.

IESG accepted the WG consensus. Lisa did not posed too many questions 
and killed the "Mapping" document. Now the RFCs have been expedited 
and published - with no disclaimer. This is great because it means a 
definitive no return point for IDNA2008. This also is bad because 
this rigidify the situation, the IESG probably constraining the IAB 
decision. This leaves IAB to document the fundamental change in IDNA 
through their IDNA RFC or find a smart way out. The only thing I know 
is that they are on rough grounds in terra incognita. This is 
http://www.freerideworldtour.com/en/ like. For all of us, now RFCs 
are published.

jfc