RE: Going too far: draft-josefsson-ipr-rules-update-00 anddraft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-01

["Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras at wilmerhale.com>]

>> As long as the IESG -- and the IESG and not [merely] the IAOC or
>> the Trustees of some real or imaginary trust -- are willing to
>> assert, based on their perception of community consensus and in
>> their role as the managers of that process, that the handover
>> serves the (standards-development) purposes of the IETF, I am
>> certainly not opposed to it.  I think it is a basic requirement
>> if we are to collaborate actively with other groups, sometimes
>> accepting things from them and sometimes handing things over.  I
>> would assume that any handover to another SDO would meet that
>> "standards-development purposes of the IETF" criterion or we
>> would not be doing it.  Whether that much authority requires the
>> additional text in the cited I-D is another question and one
>> which I am not prepared, as a non-lawyer, to try to answer.

>I'm pretty sure that it does need the draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update
>text, which was written with counsel's advice.

Though it might be the case at times, in general I don't think that
work done at other SDOs could fairly be considered to be "within
the IETF Standards Process".  This is one of the reasons
 why the IETF needs the ability grant rights to third parties.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg