ipr@conference.ietf.jabber.com - 2002/11/18
[06:40] %% mrose has arrived.
[06:41] * mrose has changed the subject to: http://www.jabber.com/chatbot/logs/conference.ietf.jabber.com/ipr
[07:05] %% avri has arrived.
[07:06] %% swb has arrived.
[07:06] <swb> ok, much better. Perhaps the first time, the server wasn't settled yet.
[07:06] <swb> thanks.
[07:07] %% rjs3 has arrived.
[07:08] %% leslie has arrived.
[07:16] %% newcat has arrived.
[07:17] %% leslie has left.
[07:17] %% leslie has arrived.
[07:18] %% hta has arrived.
[07:20] <hta> seems that nobody's scribing this. and I won't promise to.
[07:20] <rjs3> yup
[07:20] <hta> Scott Bradner is going through the list of changes to the documents since Yokohama.
[07:22] %% swb has left.
[07:22] %% Jeff has arrived.
[07:23] <mrose> to find it: go to http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html and click on the "Internet-Drafts Status Tracker" link
[07:25] <hta> the copyrights document seems uncontroversial.
[07:28] <hta> some discussion of "reasonably and personally known".
[07:28] <hta> q: are there anyone in this chatroom who is NOT sitting in the conference room?
[07:29] <mrose> yes...
[07:29] <hta> I'll dump some more notes on what's being debated here then. randomly.
[07:30] <mrose> that's fine. i don't need a word-by-word...
[07:30] <mrose> thanks!
[07:31] <avri> yes i am also follwing it fromm another meeting i have to present in
[07:32] <leslie> me2
[07:33] %% anewton has arrived.
[07:34] <hta> debate still on section 4.8 "reasonably and personally known". about to leave there.
[07:34] <hta> A better text was proposed.
[07:35] <hta> finished with the rights-in-submissions. Will be sent to WG Last Call.
[07:35] <hta> Starting on technology righs.
[07:40] <hta> christian huitema: "I can't be expected to disclose IPR in drafts that I haven't read yet".
[07:41] <hta> scott: "send text".
[07:42] <hta> Elisabeth Rodriguez: 2.2.1 - reads like a contribution is an internet-draft. In sub, a contribution is just about everything.
[07:43] <hta> Scott: "yes, there is a problem here".
[07:46] <hta> Chuck Adams: Query on 2.2.1 - does "representing" on behalf of others imply an indemnification commitment?
[07:46] <hta> Should we rather require all contributors to represent on themselves?
[07:47] <hta> Scott: how would we do this mechanistically - when one person sends in an I-D with 14 authors, how should they "represent" that they agree to it?
[07:48] %% bluebibi has arrived.
[07:49] %% smb@research.att.com has arrived.
[07:50] %% leslie has left.
[07:52] %% bluebibi has left.
[07:52] %% bluebibi has arrived.
[07:53] %% leslie has arrived.
[07:53] <hta> some more discussion on the problems with determining & listing WG participants or minor contributors. not clear whether there's any substantive change to be made.
[07:55] %% azinin has arrived.
[07:55] <bluebibi> send some text
[07:56] <hta> currently discussing content of a disclosure. Scott Brim thinks the "should"s are onerous.
[07:57] <hta> Christian Huitema: we should go in for disclosure forms. Freeform text is too wishywashy.
[07:57] <hta> Scott: We should talk about that (webform or similar) after going through Scott's document.
[07:57] <hta> (second scott = brim)
[07:58] %% hta has left.
[08:02] <leslie> Since harald appears to have left... anyone else in the IPR group willing/able to drop notes onto this conference, for those of us obliged to be elsewhere?
[08:03] %% bluebibi has left.
[08:03] %% bluebibi has arrived.
[08:04] * bluebibi has changed the subject to: http://www.jabber.com/chatbot/logs/conference.ietf.jabber.com/ipr
[08:05] <leslie> anyone on here that is actually *in* the ipr meeting?
[08:05] <rjs3> yes. I'll see what I can do.
[08:05] <leslie> Thanks!
[08:07] %% bluebibi has left.
[08:08] %% bluebibi has arrived.
[08:10] <bluebibi> Is text conferencing going on?
[08:12] %% newcat has left.
[08:12] %% newcat has arrived.
[08:14] %% rjs3 has left.
[08:14] %% rjs3 has arrived.
[08:14] %% mrose has left.
[08:15] %% mrose has arrived.
[08:16] <rjs3> Sorry, I got dropped from jabber. Much discussion on section 6.4, cut short by a time limit. Basicly, how are 3rd parties affected if the only disclosure is done by participants.
[08:17] <rjs3> Scott: participants need to disclose, everyone else should disclose.
[08:17] <rjs3> Presentation: IPR Guideliens for Working Groups, by scott brim
[08:19] <rjs3> (draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-00)
[08:21] <rjs3> Scott Brim: IPR-free and royalty free are desireable but not required (Scott Bradner: known IPR, that is)
[08:26] %% inkyulee has arrived.
[08:27] <rjs3> Scott Brim: Since the IETF doesn't take position on IPR claims, can a WG reject based on IPR. Melinda Shure comments: Does a WG have a right to reject based on the claim statement made by an organization, especially if it is vague?
[08:28] <rjs3> Bradner: It's rational for WG minutes to reflect discussion of IPR. It is worrysome if a WG looks at a patent and decides that it doesn't apply. I urge caution.
[08:32] %% inkyulee has left.
[08:33] %% avri has left.
[08:33] <rjs3> Discussion... [sorry missed the name] it is possible to influence standards due to threat of IPR, with little risk to those making the risk.
[08:34] <rjs3> Moving on in the presentation now...
[08:34] <rjs3> Brim finishes...
[08:36] <rjs3> Is there a difference between IPR and licensing? Is it a problem if it is free licensing?
[08:37] <rjs3> Bernard (Bwilda?): Should the case studies be in a different document so that they can be more detailed?
[08:42] <rjs3> Bradner: Re-Emphasize: it's assumed from the beginning that an IETF WG is thinking about IPR, this is different from some other standards bodies. This should not be ignored in making technology decisions.
[08:43] %% bluebibi has left.
[08:44] %% bluebibi has arrived.
[08:44] <rjs3> George Michaelson: We're going to have to confront a radical opposition to considering IPR. It is also very dependent on the context. This wasn't captured to me in the document.
[08:45] <rjs3> Brim: Yes, I should say more about how importance varies by case.
[08:49] %% leslie has left.
[08:50] <rjs3> Elizabeth Rodriguez (IPS Co Chair): Presentation "IPS Case Study"
[08:50] %% hta has arrived.
[08:50] %% leslie has arrived.
[08:52] %% azinin has left.
[08:53] <rjs3> Harald, if you want to take over again, please go ahead ;)
[08:53] %% rjs3 has left.
[08:54] %% rjs3 has arrived.
[08:57] <rjs3> Discussion about an addition to "Note Well?" about a call for patents statement
[08:58] %% bluebibi has left.
[08:59] %% bluebibi has arrived.
[09:00] %% hta has left.
[09:01] %% Jeff has left.
[09:01] %% Jeff has arrived.
[09:01] %% Jeff has left.
[09:03] <bluebibi> rjs3, I am appreciated for you labor. however, could you send more text?
[09:04] %% jis has arrived.
[09:04] <rjs3> sorry. Current discussion is about how to deal with process violations.
[09:05] <bluebibi> thanks
[09:06] <rjs3> further discussion moved to list. Moving on to open mic session
[09:07] <rjs3> Subject: Should we request to recharter?
[09:08] <rjs3> Bruce Perrings (W3C Patent Policy Board): What is the risk of an IETF IPR policy to Open Source?
[09:08] %% hta has arrived.
[09:12] %% logger has arrived.
[09:17] %% logger has arrived.
[09:24] %% logger has arrived.
[09:24] <rjs3> ross callon: There are things that IETF or The Internet Society could do to improve situation with respect to patents. There are huge numbers of patents invalid due to prior art
[09:24] <rjs3> (cont'd) we need a place to post prior art so that it is easy to find.
[09:26] <rjs3> Andrew Bender?: At recarter time, consider where claims have been made, especially look for prior art within ietf (?)
[09:27] <rjs3> Bradner: The expired I-D drafts repository is somewhat usable in this way already, though its not ideal. Perhaps it is possible to make them more available
[09:27] <rjs3> Last call for "should we recharter?"
[09:28] %% jis has left.
[09:28] <rjs3> Bradner: there are 3 options: don't recharter this WG. recharter now. Look at the issue again after the current set of documents are done.
[09:29] %% anewton has left.
[09:29] <rjs3> Harald: Should we recharter to formulate IETF IPR policy? It's too wishywashy to just say "can we recharter"
[09:30] <rjs3> hums. rough concensus against rechartering
[09:30] <rjs3> adjourned 11:04am
[09:30] <rjs3> er, 11:21am. my laptop's clock is wrong
[09:31] %% logger has arrived.
[09:31] <newcat> thanks rjs
[09:31] %% bluebibi has left.
[09:31] %% newcat has left.
[09:32] <rjs3> no prob lem
[09:35] %% smb@research.att.com has left.
[09:35] %% smb@research.att.com has arrived.
[09:35] %% smb@research.att.com has left.
[09:37] %% leslie has left.
[09:54] %% mrose has left.
[10:02] %% rjs3 has left.
[10:59] %% gwachob has arrived.
[11:00] %% hta has left.
[11:03] %% gwachob has left.
[11:51] %% logger has arrived.
[12:23] %% gwachob has arrived.
[12:24] %% gwachob has left.
[13:54] %% sleinen has arrived.
[13:55] %% sleinen has left.
[15:31] %% gwachob has arrived.
[15:32] %% gwachob has left.
[21:09] %% logger has arrived.
[21:44] %% logger has arrived.