Hi Larry, As you know better than most here, including myself, W3C uses two very different bodies to cope with IPR matters: 1. the PSIG, a standing committee, issues advise on policy interpretation and maintains the policy FAQ. To the best of my knowledge, the PSDIG does not look at individual patents or (draft) W3C Recommendations. 2. PAGs are formed whenever W3C has obtained knowledge that a patent may be relevant to a (forthcoming) W3C Recommendation, AND that patent claims may not be available under licensing terms compatible with the W3C policy. They have a very clear mission: clarify, whether the draft Recommendation can be practiced in disregard of the patent, whether there could be a design-around, or recommend that the Recommendation not be published. The PSIG is, IMHO, as useful body and does useful work. It's equivalent is the IPR WG (just concluded). If and when we have trouble with the policy and/or its interpretation, IMHO, the IPR WG should be restarted. Our oversight on the copyright RFCs may be such a reason. PAGs, OTOH, have no equivalent in the IETF, and IMHO also have a history of failure in W3C---which leads me to question their value for the IETF. My understanding of the very limited number of W3C PAGs that have been called on, the VoiceXML PAGs wrapped up without providing technical design-around recommendations---or advice to consider the patent in question as irrelevant to the cause---because community pressure inside W3C as a whole led the rightholder to change its licensing arrangements. And, in case of the REX PAG, the outcome was the the REX spec (which was IMHO quite useful, but I'm biased here) was rescinded. A somewhat different approach was chosen instead. However, my understanding is that the very limited, if any, "analysis" that took place in the REX PAG was NOT fed back into the design process. Plus, the REX case enjoyed full cooperation of the rightholder on the encumbrance analysis front, though not necessarily on the licensing commitment front. I'm not going into the ugly cross-SDO politics that played a role here. My personal view on PAGs, therefore, is that they have not delivered what they promised. I can also understand why: the analysis of third party patents can be, depending on the legislation you are in, quite risky; speaking in public about the analysis is almost always risky (willful infringement, liability aspects, ...). If PAGs in the W3C---with its infrastructure of attorneys on staff, certain confidentiality requirements, and a very clear policy on what licensing terms are acceptable and what are not---are that "useful", how could a similar IETF effort possibly work? The IETF has no membership, no attorneys on staff, not enough budget to retain attorneys to enable the analysis of the dozens (hundreds now?) of IPR disclosures and disclosed patents it receives every year, and no confidentiality model worth mentioning. Beyond that, the vast majority of *committed* IETF participants (those who do the vast majority of the technical work), and their sponsors (who pay for the vast majority of the technical work), appear to be quite happy with the licensing environment we have here. To summarize, I believe that spending cycles in order to attempt to adapt a non working mechanism, designed for a very different business environment, so to fix a non-problem, is not worth my time. For more than one reason. Regards, Stephan P.s.: whatever we do, it would not be enough to make radicals such as the FSF happy anyway... so why bother. On 2/18/09 10:17 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Steven, thanks very much for your email. My comments are below. /Larry > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:45 AM >> To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:20 -0800 >> "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Ted Ts'o wrote: >>>> So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and >>>> assume that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise >>>> to the reader".... care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* >>>> it could be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, >>>> and still be useful in terms of meeting your stated goals? >>> >>> I've made no such assumptions. I've submitted a couple of process >>> documents from W3C that can be modified easily to fit the IETF model. >>> I thought John and Steven would be satisfied with a rough draft. Sort >>> of like Windows might provide a model for a Linux open source >>> program, without the actual code being yet written. :-) >>> >>> Now that I've submitted this draft, I refuse to be told it isn't a >>> draft, although I admit it isn't in the proper format. Any process >>> bigots want to comment on that flaw tonight too? >>> >>> I specifically said that the W3C Patent and Standards Working Group >>> (PSIG) charter (http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/) and *section 7* of >>> the W3C Patent Policy >>> (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/) would be >>> models for an IETF IPR Advisory Board. Neither of those specific >>> document sections implies anything mandatory about RAND or >>> royalty-free or any other of the political patent battles that divide >>> us. They are merely open process descriptions, just like a draft here >>> ought to be. >>> >> >> I think it's a fair start, though I note that 7.5.3 carries with it a >> fairly strong bias towards royalty-free terms. But let me translate. > > [LR:] I share that bias, but that's an IETF battle for another day. For now, > I'm glad that you think of this as "a fair start". > > >> Rather than a standing board (which was what I thought you had >> intended), > > [LR:] I had indeed intended a standing board, and still do. Why have to > agitate and recruit an expert team over every question, when a simple > question referred to an IPR Advisory Board for an answer will probably > suffice? But like most of your points in this paragraph, it's open for > discussion.... > > >> you're suggesting (translated IETF terms) that when a WG >> encounters a patent thought to be related, a group will be formed > > [LR:] Or already exists.... > > >> consisting of the AD, the WG chair(s) ex officio, representatives of >> the WG (presumably designated by the chair(s)), perhaps an IAB liason > > [LR:] No comment. Up to you. > > >> -- and the IETF patent counsel. > > [LR:] Be very careful. No attorney who can be deemed to speak on behalf of > IETF regarding patents should be there opining IETF's opinion about actual > patents. Instead, I recommend that we have an invited (and probably open) > selection of other attorneys who are willing to sign up and actually > participate as individuals, not representing specific clients and speaking > with appropriate liability caveats. For process purposes, however, the IPR > Advisory Board can probably be chaired by an IETF patent counsel just to > make sure everyone behaves.... We'll have to see how many brave attorneys > are actually willing to participate in the entire IETF community's behalf, > but if W3C is an example, we'll find lots of willing attorneys. :-) > > >> What is the analog to "representatives >> of each member organization"? Volunteers not from the WG? Selected by >> whom? The usual IETF practice would be appointment by the AD and/or >> the IAB, I suspect. > > [LR:] ...And even some non-attorneys; I'm not prejudiced.... In light of > IETF's openness, anyone who is willing to sign up and actually participate, > although I think most engineers will find the mailing list itself boring. > Mostly it would consist of people reading the technology proposals, reading > the patent disclosures, and opining about whether they match up. No > guarantees or warranties. Just experts cooperating to advise non-experts so > we can get IETF work done. Let's keep those discussions off the WG lists > (where they distract everyone unnecessarily) and onto a single IPR Advisory > Board (with people who actually like reading patent stuff and probably > aren't just talking through their _____). > > >> What would the possible alternatives be? The W3C version has a strong >> bias towards royalty-free, since that's W3C's overarching policy. The >> IETF's policy is different, and the board's charge would have to be >> different. Really, with the exception that it needs legal input, such >> a group would actually be a design team that is supposed to look at the >> tradeoffs (per our policies) and make a recommendation to the WG. > > [LR:] Yep. In true open source fashion, I'm eagerly anticipating derivative > works of this suggestion, which was itself an unauthorized link to W3C. > > >> Anyway -- I think this is a promising suggestion, and not inconsistent >> with IETF practice or policy. But a fully-fleshed out I-D -- one that >> addresses the membership and the alternatives -- is probably needed, if >> only as a matter of form. > > [LR:] Ahhhhh yes, form. :-) Does anyone else volunteer? Do we have a second? > > /Larry > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf