Ted Hardie wrote: > Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position. You actually > want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of > the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the community actually > discuss it. Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your consistency. You're welcome. To state it more fairly, I want the result I'm arguing for to be built into the charter so that the WG can examine fairly what it will take to reach that goal. The WG cannot adopt a policy for IETF, only propose one. But the WG's work should be goal-directed. By the way, that's not such a change of tactic for that particular IPR-WG. You previously argued in committee that the current IETF patent policy is NOT a problem, and in that spirit the IPR-WG previously buried every counter-proposal we made as "off-charter"! So let's play the charter game fairly, please, by the same rules you played them. Let's charter the IPR-WG to develop a proposal that achieves a specific goal to fix a perceived patent problem. You can always argue against it in committee or vote against it if a serious proposal toward that goal gets before the IETF as a whole. /Larry Rosen _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf