Harald Alvestrand wrote: > The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are: <snip> I can't be in Vancouver for this meeting. Probably few of the others who have been vocal on these issues on these email lists can be in Vancouver either. I hope no decisions will be arrived at in what will probably be an unrepresentative arena. In-person meetings are an ineffective and expensive way to decide things in the Internet age. In any event, these email lists have elicited more comments than any meeting in Vancouver could properly address. How do we intend to move toward consensus? FWIW, I support Simon's I-D as far as it goes. It is a fine description about how free software is adversely affected by restricted copyrights and patents when implementing so-called "open standards." But I don't think that I-D will suffice alone, and I still recommend that the IPR-WG be re-chartered to propose formal IETF policies that require open standards for the Internet. We should commit in all IETF working groups to remain aware of the influence of patents and copyrights on our standards, to react in intelligent ways to any patent or copyright encumbrances brought to our attention, and all participants in the specification drafting process should commit formally to produce open standards unencumbered by copyright or patent royalties or licensing conditions that would limit implementation by anyone who wants to do so. The devil is in the details, but Vancouver is not the place to brush those details under the rug. We need to re-charter the IPR-WG to fill in the details on a policy for which we can all vote. The alternative to a re-charter is for this complaint to be brought up again and again, every time someone has the audacity to recommend an IETF specification that is encumbered so to prevent FOSS implementations. Is that preferable? If you like, spend 5-10 minutes amongst yourselves in Vancouver discussing this matter. Let us know what you decide. /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 9:21 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx; ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering > > Just a reminder.... > > I have not yet seen a request for time on the IPR agenda that is backed > with an I-D fulfilling the criteria laid out below. > > Simon's "free software guideline" exists as an I-D, but I have not had a > request to put it on the agenda. > > The deadline for -00 I-Ds is in a week. > > Harald Alvestrand > > ------------ Forwarded Message ------------ > Date: 25. oktober 2007 14:30 +0200 > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx, ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering > > As it looks now, the IPR WG's meeting in Vancouver will not be extremely > contentious. > > So, while priority MUST be given to finishing the WG's current work > (copyrights), it seems reasonable to offer a time slot to proposals to > recharter the WG to deal with patent issues. > > I think we can offer at least some time for face-to-face discussion of the > issues - but in order to have a more focused discussion than a general > discussion on whether or not anything needs to be done, > > The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are: > > - No changes are necessary. The IPR WG can shut down. > > - A change is necessary, and a specific proposal is deemed closest to what > the community wants. We can process a recharter request soon after the > IETF > meeting. > > - A change is necessary, but no consensus on what change exists. More > discussion is necessary. > > - No consensus can be reached on whether or not a change is necessary. > > I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text > (preferably published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as > possible: > > - What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent > policy > > - What changes in overall direction they think the WG should address > > - What the charter for this activity should look like > > If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each > submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at > least half an hour for general discussion. > > Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of > draft-<submitter>-ipr-patent-<something> - that would make it easy for us > to find them all. > > The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the > rechartering discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130. > > Harald > > > _______________________________________________ > Ipr-wg mailing list > Ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg > > > ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf