For what it's worth, I'd like to write in general support of re-evaluating several aspects of our patent policy. I 'm not quite writing in support of rechartering IPR at this time. First, I think they have critical copyright work to finish. Second, I think that we need to find a way to have the discussion in a productive forum. I'm not entirely sure a rechartered IPR working group would do that. Here are some examples of questions I think it might be desirable to consider: * Establishing a clear category for some sort of open-source-compatible licensing terms. We seem to think that royalty-free is good enough in our current policy, but that is demonstrably false. * Evaluating whether our IPR policies are adequate to actually provide enforcement when people violate them. What recourse do we have when people violate our policies; what recourse do users of our specs have? Is this sufficient for our needs? If we had different policies how much better would things be? * Phil's proposal has been shot down prematurely in my opinion. I agree that his current version would not fly. However I do think there are working groups that could make conclusions about their patent policies and for which doing so would have helped the effort a lot. I think sacred and dnsext are such working groups. I think you could get consensus in krb-wg that patented technology is problematic in our standards. However I'm not sure it would be useful as I don't think it would save much time. I think considering whether there are aspects of Phil's proposals it would be useful to adopt might be useful. Working through draft-housley-tls-authz-extns gave me a personal significant lack of confidence in our patent policies and whether they meet our goals and objectives. I also wonder whether our goals and objectives may have shifted somewhat since they were written. However I'm definitely uncomfortable with relying on our existing documents in any real dispute. In conclusion, I think Larry's proposed rechartering is an appropriate contribution to this list. While we may not ultimately decide to follow his course of action, I think it an appropriate contribution. I do not think he is attempting to DOS the process and believe he is participating in good faith. --Sam _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf