ipr@conference.ietf.jabber.com - 2003/03/17
[08:51] %% jaltman has arrived.
[09:46] %% gwachob has arrived.
[09:46] %% mrose has arrived.
[09:52] %% rjs3 has arrived.
[09:52] %% carlalf has arrived.
[09:52] %% mls has arrived.
[10:01] %% Scott Brim has arrived.
[10:01] %% sva has arrived.
[10:01] <mrose> scott - are you jabbering for ipr?
[10:08] <Scott Brim> Hi. Nope. I'll be busy arguing.
[10:09] <Scott Brim> Like I was just now (away from screen)
[10:09] <mrose> heh, heh... well, if you can find a jabber-er in the room, that'd be great!
[10:10] <Scott Brim> How come you get that spiffy two-tone icon?
[10:10] %% ekr has arrived.
[10:11] <ekr> what we really need is a "split screen" mode so I could be in two WGs at once.
[10:11] <gwachob> i have multiple jabber rooms open
[10:12] <ekr> no, i mean physically in two rooms :)
[10:12] <gwachob> oh, sorry, thats not something IETF has standardized yet
[10:12] <mrose> heh, heh... i think that'd be sort of icky though
[10:12] %% jaltman has left.
[10:21] %% smb@research.att.com has arrived.
[10:22] %% smb@research.att.com has left.
[10:23] %% smb@research.att.com has arrived.
[10:23] %% resnick has arrived.
[10:24] %% carlalf has left.
[10:24] <resnick> Is there someone in the IPR room jabbering?
[10:25] <rjs3> I am in the room. If there's someone more familliar with the group it'd probably be better...
[10:26] <resnick> I'm not in the room. If they start taking up rechartering, please note that.
[10:27] <smb@research.att.com> No luck thus far trying to recruit a jabberer.
[10:27] %% _ruffi_ has arrived.
[10:27] <Scott Brim> Rechartering will be a long time, like 45 minutes
[10:27] %% shep has arrived.
[10:27] %% jaltman has arrived.
[10:27] %% mls has left.
[10:28] %% _ruffi_ has left.
[10:28] %% falk has arrived.
[10:29] %% CBongo has arrived.
[10:29] <falk> agenda:
[10:29] <falk> doc status
[10:29] <rjs3> agenda: status of 3 documents, possible template for disclosure, rechartering
[10:29] %% _ruffi_ has arrived.
[10:29] %% mls has arrived.
[10:29] %% carlalf has arrived.
[10:29] %% Scott Brim has left.
[10:30] %% _ruffi_ has left.
[10:31] %% CBongo has left.
[10:31] %% rafdalb has arrived.
[10:31] %% rafdalb has left.
[10:31] %% hta has arrived.
[10:31] <rjs3> going over differences in draft-ietf-submission-rights-02 since last meeting.
[10:33] <smb@research.att.com> Scott is using wdiff, if you want to follow along.
[10:33] %% rafdalb has arrived.
[10:34] <rjs3> question: disclosure before draft submission? (answer: as soon as possible afterwords)
[10:35] <rjs3> question about 'reasonably and personally known' vs 'personally and reasonably known', using the former for consistancy between documents
[10:36] <rjs3> er, later rather
[10:37] <rjs3> hum that the document is ready to go
[10:38] <rjs3> draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-02
[10:39] %% ekr has left.
[10:39] %% ekr has arrived.
[10:39] %% ekr has left.
[10:42] %% stephennadas has arrived.
[10:43] <rjs3> discussion of licensing while advancing to draft standard
[10:44] %% NedFreed has arrived.
[10:48] %% carlalf has left.
[10:49] %% carlalf has arrived.
[10:52] %% mls has left.
[10:52] %% carlalf has left.
[10:53] <rjs3> discussion of how to make a disclosure.
[10:54] %% ekr has arrived.
[10:57] %% mls has arrived.
[11:01] <rjs3> concerns about "relevant" vs "essential" for what must be disclosed
[11:03] %% sva has left.
[11:04] %% falk has left.
[11:04] %% falk has arrived.
[11:05] %% rafdalb has left.
[11:13] %% carlalf has arrived.
[11:17] %% jis has arrived.
[11:18] %% falk has left.
[11:19] <resnick> Anything going on in there?
[11:19] <ekr> any action yet?
[11:20] <rjs3> Yeah, sorry. Still discussing draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-02. Specifically 6.6.
[11:20] %% falk has arrived.
[11:24] <rjs3> we want to finish up this document and stop wordsmithing it (which could be done forever...)
[11:24] <rjs3> draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-02
[11:25] <rjs3> whats new: lots of clarifications, alignment with bradner drafts, licensing term preferences, and new section on 3rd party disclosure
[11:25] %% klensin has arrived.
[11:26] <rjs3> whats left: editorial stuff, older case studies?, and more alignment with bradner drafts
[11:27] <rjs3> bradner: we should include a reference to the PPP compression negotiation example
[11:28] %% mls has left.
[11:29] <rjs3> Disclosure Templates
[11:30] <rjs3> goal: help people understand what they need to disclose
[11:34] <rjs3> suggestion that the templates are optional.
[11:34] %% _ruffi_ has arrived.
[11:34] %% hildjj has arrived.
[11:34] %% hildjj has left.
[11:34] %% resnick has left.
[11:35] %% dburnett has arrived.
[11:36] %% swb has arrived.
[11:37] <swb> I believe in wordsmithing technology rights for as long as it takes. This is a rather important issue wrt money.
[11:38] %% rafdalb has arrived.
[11:38] %% _ruffi_ has left.
[11:39] %% smb@research.att.com has left.
[11:40] %% smb has arrived.
[11:40] <rjs3> "any other business within the current charter?"
[11:40] %% _ruffi_ has arrived.
[11:41] <rjs3> Rechartering discussion.
[11:41] <rjs3> do we wish to recharter to consider a different IPR policy?
[11:44] <rjs3> (2 speakers) we should 'run the code' of the current policy for a while before we decide if there is a problem
[11:45] <hta> so far not a single speaker has spoken up in favour of rechartering for RF.
[11:46] <rjs3> suggested that parties that would be in favor are not actually here.
[11:49] <falk> kireeti is encouraging rechartering
[11:50] <falk> says vendors don't understand what 'reasonable and non-discriminatory' will mean, should consider alternative approaches
[11:51] <rjs3> discussion of the possibility of a patent pool
[11:51] <swb> RAND is meaningless, legally
[11:52] <falk> bradner says patent pool may be a good idea but not necessarily administered by IETF
[11:52] <rjs3> suggestion that we should look at this in the problem WG and
[11:52] <rjs3> not in IPR
[11:53] <ekr> no yelling from the open source guys yet?
[11:53] <falk> bellovin says patent pool may require membership; would need problem-statement group to say we need membership to start down that road
[11:54] <swb> I don't see them in the room
[11:54] <swb> I know Larry Rosen said he wouldn't be here
[11:54] <falk> kireeti says a non-IETF patent pool would still require IETF activity to insist on reasonable and free terms
[11:55] <falk> harald (hat-free) says current docs _permit_ wgs to write standards that are royalty free
[11:56] <falk> bradner: patent pools work best for pool-members, non-members may have problems, may require a formal membership mechanism to make everyone a member
[11:57] <falk> brian carpenter: patent pools is something industry associations do and neither IETF nor ISOC are industry associations. hard to even discuss this question.
[11:57] %% jaltman has left.
[11:58] %% carlalf has left.
[11:59] <falk> allan lu: IETF has influence over patent issues that arise during the creation of standards, not with 3rd parties who show up later.
[12:02] <falk> bradner: disagree -- big difference between someone showing up and being up front about requiring royalties and forcing rights owners to disclose IPR (?)
[12:03] <falk> jorge: RAND is in the eye of the beholder but there are some accepted norms
[12:03] %% NedFreed has left.
[12:03] <falk> jorge is the IETF lawyer
[12:03] <swb> falk: it's allan lo
[12:03] <falk> sorry
[12:04] <falk> david black: there are specific instances where the IETF has pressed for and gotten terms of licensing, done only in special, important cases
[12:06] <falk> allan lo: panel for FTC and DOJ agrees that RAND has no meaning
[12:06] <falk> lo: every license may be unique, so non-descriminatory has no meaning
[12:06] <falk> lo: don't leave believing that there is any certainty that two companyies' legal departments can agree what RAND means
[12:07] %% paul.knight has arrived.
[12:07] %% senthil has arrived.
[12:07] <falk> lo: IETF should consider whether a different policy is appropriate because of the IETF's _central_ nature
[12:08] <falk> lo: RAND is often measured in percentage of revenue, can become very burdensome
[12:08] <falk> bradener: this is all true but not relevant.
[12:09] <falk> sob: if we force royalty-free, more people would not participate to keep their rights
[12:10] %% anuoppon has arrived.
[12:10] <falk> sob: old case where motorola refused to provide terms and worked a DOS on the standard
[12:11] <falk> black: personal knowledge supporting the lack of agreement what RAND means
[12:12] <falk> paul g: this is philosophy. we're here because we want to work together. some want to make individual contributions (and royalty-free rules). the others rely on RAND
[12:12] %% shep has left.
[12:12] <falk> paul g: RAND may make the process slower, knowing the terms may slow willingness to collaborate
[12:13] <falk> no more speakers at mic
[12:13] <falk> smb: time for a hum
[12:13] <falk> q: do you wish this group to recharter to change the IETF's IPR policy?
[12:13] <falk> smb: i hear a fairly clear consensus against rechartering
[12:14] <falk> smb: does anyone disagree?
[12:14] <falk> no response
[12:14] <falk> harald: needs verification on list
[12:14] %% anuoppon has left.
[12:15] <falk> harald: if it clears the list, the IETF will not consider proposals to recreate the working group without compelling arguments to do so
[12:15] <falk> harald: likely result is that the IPR chairs and authors will get dismissed
[12:15] <falk> smb: adjourn
[12:15] %% paul.knight has left.
[12:16] %% dburnett has left.
[12:16] %% falk has left.
[12:16] %% senthil has left.
[12:16] %% stephennadas has left.
[12:17] %% mlshore has arrived.
[12:18] %% jis has left.
[12:18] %% jis has arrived.
[12:18] %% jis has left.
[12:18] %% _ruffi_ has left.
[12:19] %% rjs3 has left.
[12:25] %% joelja has arrived.
[12:26] %% joelja has left.
[12:28] %% swb has left.
[12:30] %% rafdalb has left.
[12:32] %% mls has arrived.
[12:32] %% mls has left.
[12:33] %% smb has left.
[12:34] %% mlshore has left.
[12:34] %% takamiya has arrived.
[12:39] %% hta has left.
[12:43] %% takamiya has left.
[13:00] %% klensin has left.
[13:08] %% mrose has left.
[13:28] %% gwachob has left.
[13:33] %% ekr has left.
[17:02] %% falk has arrived.
[17:35] %% falk has left.
[22:33] %% smb has arrived.
[22:34] %% smb has left.