Paul Hoffman wants: > In this case, "worked-out" means a document > that describes the the current solution, the advantages and disadvantages > of it, a proposal for a new solution, and a transition plan. Paul, I'm not sure what more you're asking for at this stage. This list is lively with suggestions, convincing me that IPR issues continue to dominate the IETF airwaves. A "worked-out" document would be premature in this context. One suggestion, now a specific topic on this list if you care to respond directly, is for the creation of an IETF IPR Advisory Board to help people everywhere--including thousands of disaffected FSF campaigners--to understand why certain patents (including the Redphone "patent") are not worth worrying about. The charter would be: "Answer IPR questions that are posed by other IETF working groups." The quality of its answers, as with any IETF working group, will be at least partly a function of the quality of its participants. This suggestion is perhaps the most important currently before us, because an IETF IPR Advisory Board will be able to stop FSF campaigns and other distractions before they start with facts instead of fiction. What would YOU suggest for a charter for such an Advisory Board to keep it from crossing into any forbidden areas? Or is it every man and woman for themselves in these patent-infested waters? /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 3:20 PM > To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: > References to Redphone's "patent") > > At 2:11 PM -0800 2/16/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > >Let's forget the past; I acknowledge we lost that argument then among > those > >few who bothered to hum. > > Many of us have heard this in various technical working groups when people > who didn't get their way come back later. Such reconsiderations, > particularly on topics of a non-protocol nature, are rarely embraced. We > are humans with limited time and energy and focus. > > >But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a > >loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? > > No, it is a statement that a group of people who are not active in the > IETF want us to spend our time and effort to fix a problem they feel that > they have. > > > This is not > >the first such open source campaign either. IETF needs a more sturdy > process > >to deal with IPR issues. Please consider the suggestions now on the > table. > > Where? I see no Internet Draft, nor any significant group of people who > have said they are willing to work on the problem. Seriously, if this is a > significant issue for this motivated group of people, they can do some > research and write one (or probably more) Internet Drafts. > > The IETF has never been swayed by blitzes of a mailing list asking for us > to do someone else's technical work; we should not be swayed by similar > blitzes asking us to do their policy work. We are, however, amazingly (and > sometime painfully) open to discussing worked-out solutions of either a > technical or policy nature. In this case, "worked-out" means a document > that describes the the current solution, the advantages and disadvantages > of it, a proposal for a new solution, and a transition plan. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf