I agree with the suggestions below and that I never liked the note well wordings. In addition, from Cullen's first message and others, it seems like most IETF participants are not practicing or understandning the note well. The reason may be because engineers are not good in legal issues, so do we have a current legal advisor/position in IETF organisation, or still IETF has no progress in legal experience, so we will need to go back to external legal. Why IETF just leaves its participants alone to do the legal advise but when it comes to their works it encourages inputs? Does the note well consider all countries/regions legal policies? Is it practical/agreeable for all participants any where, or was it tested? For me I don't agree with the way the note well is forced on all, it needs more discussions between WGs and their Chairs, but no time for it or no advisors or group discussion/meeting for legal issues (may be only IESG decides for us so far which is never practical). AB On 1/27/14, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1/27/2014 8:17 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: >> All - it is clear that you have a concern about the new note well text. >> The problem has been well articulated; > > > Jari, et al, > > > There are a number of different problems, and only some of them have > been articulated. Worse, the problems include the IPR rules themselves, > not just the Note Well: > > 0. We have had IPR rules and a Note Well for many years and have > revised both a number of times. Normally, work we do that has been > around that long warrants being called "mature", which means that it > works well and is well understood. The latest discussion demonstrates > that that model does not apply to the IETF's IPR handling. In fact, the > exchange looks more like the disparities we see early in a working group > effort, not what normally takes place after many years. > > 1. The participants in the discussion are extremely experienced > with the IETF and with this topic. Yet they demonstrated a strong > /lack/ of rough consensus about what the /current/ IPR rules mean. > > 2. The current rules are too complex for use by average > engineers. Engineers are not attorneys, nevermind IPR attorneys. IPR > is considered by attorneys to be an esoteric and difficult specialty. > The IETF's IPR rules need to be simple and simply stated, if we expect > average engineers to understand them. > > 3. The current IPR rules appear to impose an unreasonable demand > on IETF participants, such as conflicting with employment arrangements. > (And if the demand is reasonable, then what is noteworthy is that > someone who has read this latest IETF discussion has developed the > impression that it isn't. See point 6.) > > 4. The current Note Well is too complex and apparently erroneous. > (And if it is not erroneous, then what is noteworthy is that a serious > attempt to review the thread has resulted in someone coming to the > conclusion that the Note Well is erroneous. See point 6.) > > 5. Expecting an average IETF engineer to consult 4 different > BCPs, in order to understand what is required of them is not reasonable. > Nor is all each document relevant. So, in effect, the references are > overly broad, as well as too complicated. (See point 6.) > > 6. Having a range of experienced, diligent IETF participants > demonstrate substantive disagreement about the meaning of our current > IPR rules undermines whatever utility the rules might have. It sets up > a litigation argument that the participant did not understand the rules, > citing this thread as demonstrating that others also don't. > > > The remedies we need are not just with the Note Well. We need to fix > the IPR rules too. > > > 0. We need to establish clear and compelling community rough > consensus about the meaning of our IPR rules and the utility of our Note > Well. We are currently /very/ far from being able to do that. > > 1. We need a consensus statement that describes our 'model' of an > IETF particpant, in terms of what is reasonable for them to know and > what is reasonable for them to be responsible for and what is reasonable > for them to do, especially within the real time performance constraints > of a working group meeting. The premise of that model needs to be > extreme simplicity and clarity. Any rules we assert need to be vetted > against that model. Our current arrangement requires an average > engineer to be more knowledgeable and more diligent than is reasonable. > (By 'diligent' I'm not referring to intent; I'm referring to classic > human factors usability limits.) > > 2. One of the distinctions in the latest discussion is between > having the Note Well attempt to summarize what the IPR rules are, versus > having it merely declare that we have IPR rules and point the reader to > them. For summary instruments, like a Note Well, the latter approach > makes far more sense. > > 3. We need all of the IPR rules for IETF participation to be in a > single, simple, clear document that is easily understandable by an > average engineer. (See point 1.) > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >