Re: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In any event, these email lists have elicited more comments than any meeting in Vancouver could properly address. How do we intend to move toward consensus? I think it is clear from the discussions that while there is no consensus that the current way of doing things is adequate, there is also little to no hope for reaching a consensus anytime soon for a comprehensive set of changes that would fully resolve the existing concerns with regard to standards-track and other RFCs describing protocols and data formats which for patent reasons cannot fully be implemented in open source and free software. The only way forward therefore seems to be to seek to identify relatively small changes for which rough consensus can be reached and which are helpful already for reducing the problem or resoving some aspects of it. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUGhttp://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
Harald Alvestrand wrote: The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are: snip I can't be in Vancouver for this meeting. Probably few of the others who have been vocal on these issues on these email lists can be in Vancouver either. I hope no decisions will be arrived at in what will probably be an unrepresentative arena. In-person meetings are an ineffective and expensive way to decide things in the Internet age. In any event, these email lists have elicited more comments than any meeting in Vancouver could properly address. How do we intend to move toward consensus? FWIW, I support Simon's I-D as far as it goes. It is a fine description about how free software is adversely affected by restricted copyrights and patents when implementing so-called open standards. But I don't think that I-D will suffice alone, and I still recommend that the IPR-WG be re-chartered to propose formal IETF policies that require open standards for the Internet. We should commit in all IETF working groups to remain aware of the influence of patents and copyrights on our standards, to react in intelligent ways to any patent or copyright encumbrances brought to our attention, and all participants in the specification drafting process should commit formally to produce open standards unencumbered by copyright or patent royalties or licensing conditions that would limit implementation by anyone who wants to do so. The devil is in the details, but Vancouver is not the place to brush those details under the rug. We need to re-charter the IPR-WG to fill in the details on a policy for which we can all vote. The alternative to a re-charter is for this complaint to be brought up again and again, every time someone has the audacity to recommend an IETF specification that is encumbered so to prevent FOSS implementations. Is that preferable? If you like, spend 5-10 minutes amongst yourselves in Vancouver discussing this matter. Let us know what you decide. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 9:21 PM To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering Just a reminder I have not yet seen a request for time on the IPR agenda that is backed with an I-D fulfilling the criteria laid out below. Simon's free software guideline exists as an I-D, but I have not had a request to put it on the agenda. The deadline for -00 I-Ds is in a week. Harald Alvestrand Forwarded Message Date: 25. oktober 2007 14:30 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -- End Forwarded Message -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org
Re: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:44:33 -0800 Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harald Alvestrand wrote: The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are: snip I can't be in Vancouver for this meeting. Probably few of the others who have been vocal on these issues on these email lists can be in Vancouver either. I hope no decisions will be arrived at in what will probably be an unrepresentative arena. In-person meetings are an ineffective and expensive way to decide things in the Internet age. In any event, these email lists have elicited more comments than any meeting in Vancouver could properly address. How do we intend to move toward consensus? Per 2418, of course the mailing list decision is the one that counts. OTOH -- and as is well-understood -- it's often much harder to assess consensus over the net than in person. (It's also harder to reach consensus, in many cases, since email tends to be a polarizing medium, prone to flames and other forms of intemperate behavior.) If you have any suggestions for how to deal with these problems -- and they are problems -- I think the IETF would be very interested in hearing them. (And because I realize that this statement can be misinterpreted, given the lack of tone of voice and body language on a mailing list, let me stress that I'm being 100% serious, complimentary, etc.) The alternative to a re-charter is for this complaint to be brought up again and again, every time someone has the audacity to recommend an IETF specification that is encumbered so to prevent FOSS implementations. Is that preferable? I'm no longer an AD; if I were, my attitude would be simple: the IETF has decided, as a group, that patented technology is acceptable. There's no point to reopening the question every individual document. Were this a legal matter, I'd cry stare decisis. I'm not saying you shouldn't keep pushing, but if the IESG were to ignore a consensus to follow the current policy it would be challenged and rightly so. (The substantive issue on the document currently being discussed is not the fact of the patent -- under current policy, that's acceptable -- but rather the timing of the disclosure.) The question to discuss now is whether enough has changed since the last consensus call on this topic, in March-April 2003, that it pays to reopen the rechartering question. I personally don't think so, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
I'm no longer an AD; if I were, my attitude would be simple: the IETF has decided, as a group, that patented technology is acceptable. There's no point to reopening the question every individual document. +1 though I'd probably phrase this differently, e.g.: the IETF has decided, as a group, that a blanket patent policy is counterproductive to IETF's goals. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
FWIW, My understanding of the community consensus in 2003 is what Keith said... Spencer though I'd probably phrase this differently, e.g.: the IETF has decided, as a group, that a blanket patent policy is counterproductive to IETF's goals. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
On 2007-11-06 08:22, Spencer Dawkins wrote: FWIW, My understanding of the community consensus in 2003 is what Keith said... Spencer though I'd probably phrase this differently, e.g.: the IETF has decided, as a group, that a blanket patent policy is counterproductive to IETF's goals. Mine too. If I was going to be in Vancouver, I'd ask for a few minutes to talk about draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-01.txt. That draft doesn't exist yet, but will do, with the new requirement in the -00 version changed to a mere preference. My objective would be to test the level of interest in that approach. However, since it is not a change to RFC 3978, but to the interpretation of RFC 2026 itself, I would argue *against* rechartering the IPR WG for this tweak. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
