Hi Keith, On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:31 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <keith.drage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In regard to "all countries / regions" the disclosure requirements are not that different from the disclosure requirements of every SDO, all with memberships from just about every country in the world. > > I would have expected that if there was a legal problem with disclosure, then it would have been spotted by now, given the level of test it has been given by all those SDOs. > > The difference with IETF is with representation by individual. For the SDOs the membership is by company or equivalent, and they sign up (on behalf of all their employees or consultants) to the disclosure requirements when they join the SDO. The IETF is by no means unique in this regard. IEEE 802 and all its working groups (802.3 (Ethernet), 802.11 (Wi-Fi), 802.15 (Bluetooth/Zigbee/etc)) all have "representation by individual". Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > But in general the disclosure requires as defined in RFC 3979 are not that complex and it is entirely reasonable that all participants should be required to read it. I do not believe it requires a trained legal expert to understand it. > > And as for being left alone, if you really are an individual (alone) with "contributor's IPR" or "participants IPR" then you are paying any awful lot of legal fees to keep that IPR; why not spend some of it on your responsibilities to IETF. > > As for consultants, if you are paid to participate in the IETF, then you should ensure your contract allows you to meet the requirements of the IETF. It might help if RFC 3979 made this point, but it should be self evident anyway. > > Regards > > Keith > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: WGChairs [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf >> Of Abdussalam Baryun >> Sent: 29 January 2014 10:39 >> To: ietf >> Cc: Cullen Jennings (fluffy); IETF WG Chairs >> Subject: Re: Problem with new Note Well >> >> 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 >> > >>