Re: [hrpc] new title for draft-tenoever-hrpc-political

[Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]>]

Hi Amelia,

IPR is a major issue among all the SDOs, and it would be difficult to
support the proposition that the IETF has somehow a  better
arrangement.  The international entity which almost all the SDOs use to
collaborate annually even has a special subcommittee on IPR that is
probably best of breed.  Ref. 
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/gsc/Pages/default.aspx

As to other externalities, these issues are (and have long been) vetted
on a rather large scale in almost all ITU venues - and one of them - the
ITU-D is dedicated entirely to these matters.  They have rather constant
meetings, openly available materials, and encompass pretty much the
entire world on a significant scale.  These ITU venues even have a
special category for almost zero cost membership by academic and NGO
institutions who participate quite actively and raise the issues of your
concern.   The highly active Mandat group in Switzerland, even chairs
the SG20 (IoT) group on Research and emerging technologies, terminology
and definitions.  See http://www.geneve-int.ch/mandat-international-0 
One could argue that the IETF has over the decades been a standards
bodies that has had little focus on externalities.

--tony


On 27-Jul-18 7:23 AM, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
> It was my idea when I contributed to this effort that the point of the
> document is to look at the specificities of the IETF. And there are
> some: for instance, the IETF has, to a larger extent than other SDOs,
> avoided IPR complications by research cited in the draft. Even issues
> that are normally fairly closed, such as externalities (financing,
> social context), are fairly openly discussed in the IETF.