-----Original Message-----
From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb at cs.columbia.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:45 AM
To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:20 -0800
"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
Ted Ts'o wrote:
So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and
assume that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise
to the reader".... care to give a detailed suggestion about *how*
it could be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures,
and still be useful in terms of meeting your stated goals?
I've made no such assumptions. I've submitted a couple of process
documents from W3C that can be modified easily to fit the IETF model.
I thought John and Steven would be satisfied with a rough draft. Sort
of like Windows might provide a model for a Linux open source
program, without the actual code being yet written. :-)
Now that I've submitted this draft, I refuse to be told it isn't a
draft, although I admit it isn't in the proper format. Any process
bigots want to comment on that flaw tonight too?
I specifically said that the W3C Patent and Standards Working Group
(PSIG) charter (http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/) and *section 7* of
the W3C Patent Policy
(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/) would be
models for an IETF IPR Advisory Board. Neither of those specific
document sections implies anything mandatory about RAND or
royalty-free or any other of the political patent battles that divide
us. They are merely open process descriptions, just like a draft here
ought to be.
I think it's a fair start, though I note that 7.5.3 carries with it a
fairly strong bias towards royalty-free terms. But let me translate.
[LR:] I share that bias, but that's an IETF battle for another day. For now,
I'm glad that you think of this as "a fair start".
Rather than a standing board (which was what I thought you had
intended),
[LR:] I had indeed intended a standing board, and still do. Why have to
agitate and recruit an expert team over every question, when a simple
question referred to an IPR Advisory Board for an answer will probably
suffice? But like most of your points in this paragraph, it's open for
discussion....
you're suggesting (translated IETF terms) that when a WG
encounters a patent thought to be related, a group will be formed
[LR:] Or already exists....
consisting of the AD, the WG chair(s) ex officio, representatives of
the WG (presumably designated by the chair(s)), perhaps an IAB liason
[LR:] No comment. Up to you.
-- and the IETF patent counsel.
[LR:] Be very careful. No attorney who can be deemed to speak on behalf of
IETF regarding patents should be there opining IETF's opinion about actual
patents. Instead, I recommend that we have an invited (and probably open)
selection of other attorneys who are willing to sign up and actually
participate as individuals, not representing specific clients and speaking
with appropriate liability caveats. For process purposes, however, the IPR
Advisory Board can probably be chaired by an IETF patent counsel just to
make sure everyone behaves.... We'll have to see how many brave attorneys
are actually willing to participate in the entire IETF community's behalf,
but if W3C is an example, we'll find lots of willing attorneys. :-)
What is the analog to "representatives
of each member organization"? Volunteers not from the WG? Selected by
whom? The usual IETF practice would be appointment by the AD and/or
the IAB, I suspect.
[LR:] ...And even some non-attorneys; I'm not prejudiced.... In light of
IETF's openness, anyone who is willing to sign up and actually participate,
although I think most engineers will find the mailing list itself boring.
Mostly it would consist of people reading the technology proposals, reading
the patent disclosures, and opining about whether they match up. No
guarantees or warranties. Just experts cooperating to advise non-experts so
we can get IETF work done. Let's keep those discussions off the WG lists
(where they distract everyone unnecessarily) and onto a single IPR Advisory
Board (with people who actually like reading patent stuff and probably
aren't just talking through their _____).
What would the possible alternatives be? The W3C version has a strong
bias towards royalty-free, since that's W3C's overarching policy. The
IETF's policy is different, and the board's charge would have to be
different. Really, with the exception that it needs legal input, such
a group would actually be a design team that is supposed to look at the
tradeoffs (per our policies) and make a recommendation to the WG.
[LR:] Yep. In true open source fashion, I'm eagerly anticipating derivative
works of this suggestion, which was itself an unauthorized link to W3C.
Anyway -- I think this is a promising suggestion, and not inconsistent
with IETF practice or policy. But a fully-fleshed out I-D -- one that
addresses the membership and the alternatives -- is probably needed, if
only as a matter of form.
[LR:] Ahhhhh yes, form. :-) Does anyone else volunteer? Do we have a second?
/Larry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
