Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

[stephen botzko <[e-mail]>]

A joint-body first agrees upon its charter and working methods, which allows
for any negotiation on IPR rules and membership, etc.

All of the companies I know who are active in the ITU are also active in the
IETF.  So it seems to me that there should be some willingness to work
together.

In any event, if the joint-body negotiations fail, then the IETF simply
proceeds on its own.  There is not much to lose, and as you seem to agree,
potentially a lot to gain.

Stephen Botzko
Polycom

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Monty Montgomery <[e-mail]>wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, stephen botzko
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I kind of like the joint body idea.
> >
> > One reason is that it brings the ITU codec characterization/testing
> > strengths into the process.
> >
> > Though it might take a little longer to get going, it could save a lot of
> > time at the end (IMHO).
>
> Is there indication that desire exists within the ITU to formalize a
> completely unencumbered codec?  There is no doubt that the ITU has
> vast expertise and resources directly relevant to what we're doing.
>
> We have seen there is that interest in MPEG, but one can understand it
> hasn't happened because the MPEG process is stacked against it.  That
> stacking would appear to exist in the ITU as well.  Is there a
> parallel situation where there's always been strong unencumbered
> baseline interest within the ITU that simply isn't obvious from the
> outside? Such interest would seem to be a requirement for a successful
> joint body.
>
> If that interest exists within the ITU and those Open/Free proponents
> sense an opportunity to ger 'er done by cooperating with the IETF...
> well. That's an entirely different matter and cause for optimism.  Is
> it the case?  I apologize for my lack of knowledge on this matter.
>
> Monty
> Xiph.Org
>