Harald, I am unable to be in Vancouver for the meeting, but I hope that someone else there will support the re-charter of the IPR WG as I suggested in my earlier email:
*************** I request that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents. *************** I also hope that a decision on this will not be based simply on who attends in Vancouver, but on a wider representative vote of IETF participants. /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:31 AM > To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering > > As it looks now, the IPR WG's meeting in Vancouver will not be extremely > contentious. > > So, while priority MUST be given to finishing the WG's current work > (copyrights), it seems reasonable to offer a time slot to proposals to > recharter the WG to deal with patent issues. > > I think we can offer at least some time for face-to-face discussion of the > issues - but in order to have a more focused discussion than a general > discussion on whether or not anything needs to be done, > > The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are: > > - No changes are necessary. The IPR WG can shut down. > > - A change is necessary, and a specific proposal is deemed closest to what > the community wants. We can process a recharter request soon after the > IETF > meeting. > > - A change is necessary, but no consensus on what change exists. More > discussion is necessary. > > - No consensus can be reached on whether or not a change is necessary. > > I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text > (preferably published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as > possible: > > - What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent > policy > > - What changes in overall direction they think the WG should address > > - What the charter for this activity should look like > > If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each > submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at > least half an hour for general discussion. > > Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of > draft-<submitter>-ipr-patent-<something> - that would make it easy for us > to find them all. > > The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the > rechartering discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130. > > Harald > > > _______________________________________________ > Ipr-wg mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
