|
Hi Barry, On 7/8/16 5:34 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
The IESG is considering an IESG statement on IPR Declarations, and would like to solicit comments from the community on the proposed text. The proposed text is provided below. The IESG will make a decision about this matter shortly. Please provide comments, if any, to ietf@xxxxxxxx or to the IESG at iesg@xxxxxxxx before July 31, 2016.The statement below seems to amount to "The IESG has nothing to do with IPR disclosures," and nothing more. I don't understand why the IESG wants to put that out as an IESG Statement, rather than, say, posting it prominently on the IPR disclosure pages (where people who need to see it might actually see it), and making sure that it also covers the IAB, and maybe the IAOC, ISOC, and the IETF Secretariat. If I read correctly between the lines, and one must do that since the IESG has not been clear as to why they wish to issue the statement, the IESG is saying that they do not want the IETF to be used as a football in a court case as being in some way dispositive about whether or not IPR is valid. And that is all well and good because very few of us are actually lawyers. I cannot, however, evaluate whether or not such a statement actually accomplishes that goal. I'm not a lawyer. I could also imagine some WG participants falsely extrapolating from this draft statement that they may not raise a discussion about IPR. I believe the statement should be clearer as to its intent and on this point. Eliot |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature