On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:32:21 -0700 "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask > that we NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its > charter is revised to allow it to *completely revise* IETF's IPR > policies with respect to patents. > > This issue was "strangled in committee" the last time the IPR-WG > addressed RAND and other IPR policies for industry standards, with > the WG leaders insisting (erroneously in my opinion) that there was > consensus NOT to address the problems that the current IETF patent > polices pose for open source *and* proprietary implementations of > supposedly open standards. > > However it has to be done, I ask that IETF not let that burial happen > again. Let's first charter the IPR-WG to completely reconsider the > IETF patent policy in light of new software industry expectations, > and so that we get rid of the inadequate RAND (and even non-RAND) > IETF IPR policies that currently exist. > > "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." -- (U.S.) Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The original charter of the IPR working group was to clarify the IETF's patent documents. As chair, I promised the WG that once those documents were finished, we'd discuss rechartering. That happened, and went on for many months. You're welcome to consult the mailing list archives for that discussion. At the Atlanta IETF (November 2002), the WG meeting was polled. According to the minutes (http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/130.htm), there was no consensus to recharter. The discussion continued; at the next IETF (San Francisco, March 2003), the room was polled again. The minutes (http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/132.htm) say "fairly clear consensus against rechartering." Per IETF procedures, I took the matter to the mailing list; see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg00962.html I did my level best to run an open, honest poll. I announced the result two weeks later: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg01195.html You're welcome to consult the archives yourself to verify my count -- per my first note, I asked (and took technical measures to ensure) that votes were public. The issue was very widely discussed during the process, both within the IPR WG and elsewhere. It was covered in the trade press; see, for example, http://www.news.com/Free-software-gadfly-takes-on-Net-group/2100-1001_3-971124.html Note this quote, btw: Judging by an informal poll at the group's Atlanta meeting, that movement isn't gaining any momentum with the current membership, according to both Perens and the group's chair, Steve Bellovin. Bruce Perens is a well-known open source activist who spoke quite often on the subject in the WG. The final result was described at http://www.news.com/Standards-group-beats-back-patent-foes/2100-1013_3-996351.html To summarize: I did my level best to ensure a fair consensus call. I stand by my statement then that the consensus of the group was against rechartering. If you have evidence to the contrary, I think you should produce it. I also assert -- though this is more of an opinion -- that given the structure of the IETF, where anyone could participate in any WG meeting, the notion of "strangling in committee" a major issue simply doesn't apply. In a legislative body, with a fixed set of voting members, that can happen; I don't think it can happen in the IETF unless there's a complete absence of publicity -- and that certainly wasn't the case here. Now -- it's been 4.5 years since that consensus call, and perhaps the world and the IETF have changed enough since then that it's worth reopening the question. I doubt it, but my involvement with the IETF over the last three years has been much less than it was before that. (And I'm no longer the co-chair of the IPR WG, so any future efforts wouldn't be my problem.) That said, the IETF does not operate as a committee of the whole; it's just too big. Any proposed policy change will have to be taken up by *some* WG, whether the current IPR WG or a new one. If you think a new effort might be fruitful, I suggest you discuss how to proceed with Russ Housley, the IETF chair and General AD, and Harald Alvestrand, the current IPR WG chair. You may be right about the present and the future -- but let's not try to rewrite the past. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf