> But that's not the requirement. The requirement is to
> disclose knowledge
> of the existence of IPR, not to try to secure a license to it.
>
> Given that, do you still disagree with the requirement?
I disagree with the requirement because I don't think there is
an enforceable requirement. I think that if there is a problem
and a court case results, that the way the IPR policy has been
enacted will allow any barely competent lawyer to get arround
it.
The way to reference the RFC 2026 text is by stating that the
group will be run according to RFC 2026. I am not a lawyer
but I do know something about the difference between specifying
a policy by reference and by direct quotation.
I disagree with any requirement imposed by a working group chair
who believes he is not accountable to the group. I do not think
that the way an IPR regime should be specified is a unilateral
statement from the chair that a decision has been taken.
An IPR policy should not be something that members of a group
discover when they are told it has been imposed from above.
What happened to open and inclusive?
So far we have had a deliberate campaign of heckling that the
chair did nothing to stop followed by the chair taking sanctions
against anyone who complained about the hecklers.
Five members of the group have resigned in disgust at the heckler
faction.
You will note that none of the posts I have sent on this topic
have made it to the list. So even if I do make a statement
concerning IPR the chances are that the post will be seen are
nil.
The chair has admitted that the reason my posts are blocked is
that I am working on starting anti-spam groups in other forums,
I am not aware that that type of move has EVER been sanctioned
by IETF process.
The chair has contributed nothing of value to this debate, his sole interest
in the group appears to be exploiting it for PR value to promote his
company, not the group.
I have no confidence in Paul Judge as chair. I believe that his handling of
the group is damaging the IETF. The group may be in the IRTF but the mailing
list bears the name IETF and it the group is being presented to the press as
having been charged by the IETF to solve the problem.
The FTC testimony was dire. The ASRG chair stated that he believed the group
would come up with a technical solution. Every one of the other members of
the
technical panel then stated that they thought it had already failed. It made
the IETF look ridiculous.
If group chairs are going to have this degree of power it would probably be
a good idea to have a process that is a little more formal for selecting
them than choosing the first person to make a proposal. It would probably be
a good idea to choose chairs that have some experience of being an ordinary
working group member before they act as chair.
It would be a really good idea to allow groups to have input into the
selection of chairs. This top heavy dictatorial style is not working, is not
open and is not inclusive.
At this point the heckler faction have been allowed to drive away most of
the productive members of the group.
Phill
