Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

"GTW" <> Sat, 11 August 2012 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BF121F848A; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.739
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28a6hWOk546q; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAA921F8472; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:1206 helo=gtw8608f024389) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <>) id 1T0Cwe-00057V-TV; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:45:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CB9994EDE13F4C42B859C4F6637183F3@gtw8608f024389>
From: "GTW" <>
To: "IETF" <>, "IAB" <>, "IETF-Announce" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:45:41 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-ACL-Warn: X-The email account used to send this email was:
Cc: IAB <>, IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: GTW <>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:45:46 -0000

I support the thrust of the "Modern Global Standards Paradigm"  It is 
particularly timely  as the US formally prepares for meetings of the ITU and 
CITEL and there are some aspirations from some members and staff at ITU 
inconsistent with the market based approach to standards setting the 
document embraces.  I support IETF Chair and the IAB Chair signing such a 

While I am content with the wording of the section on IP  this text  is 
nevertheless imprecise.

clip from

4. Availability. Standards specifications are made accessible to all for

implementation and deployment. Affirming standards organizations have 

procedures to develop specifications that can be implemented under fair 

Given market diversity, fair terms may vary from royalty-free (especially 

open source is commonplace) to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory 


end clip

 If there were time for tweaking it would be helpful.  What are time 
constraints?   The first sentence  seems to be describing the availability 
of specifications to users ... this is the issue of copyrights and fees 
charged for copies of standards.  Specifications have to be available to 
users under reasonable terms but not necessarily for free.  But the words 
are not clear that is what is being addressed. The second sentence seems to 
describe that   licenses to practice essential patent claims related to a 
standards  are available under "fair terms"  However the global patent 
policy concept generally is  that such licenses should be available under 
"reasonable and non discriminatory" terms.   The single  term   "reasonable 
and non discriminatory" covers  the situation where there may be a "fee" 
involved or not.  There may be  non fee based terms in what other wise be 
called "royalty free" licenses It is not that RAND and FRAND are different 
from "royalty free" It is that "royalty free"  falls under the overall 
condition of  fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory term when there may 
be non royalty terms involved.  Sometimes the "royalty free" situation is 
described as  "RAND(0)"   I   am also curious about the IETF experience with 
its patent policy.  What is further background  to the statement that "often 
our IPR terms at  IETF end up being much worse than that."  The comments 
below that the paragraph does not  accurately describe the IETF experience 
are worrisome.

clip from

 Cullen Jennings: I was just noting that the IPR terms vary from RF to
FRAND. I wish that was true. But I think that often our IPR terms at
IETF end up being much worse than that.

Russ: Understand.

Leslie Daigle: I wanted just to help you out a bit by popping up a
level and giving the broader context of this whole statement. You have
alluded to the fact that it was born from discussions with a number of
organizations. Everyone should appreciate that Russ is presenting today
something that he thinks is viable for the IETF. The challenge has been
that indeed the words have been discussed extensively for a period of
time and there was fairly wide divergence exactly on the point that
Cullen just mentioned. Have been seeking terminology that says something
positive about how to do things, and also encompasses a broad range of
ways that different organizations do things. We are very different from
the WC3, which is very different from the IEEE. But we are trying to
capture things that are positive, constructive, new -- as compared to
the establishment, if you will, of the SDO world. So that has been the
challenge. Having input from people in terms of support or not is
probably quite useful. The document -- and I will personally take
responsibility for some of this -- is not in the best English ever. So,
some of the comments on it would be better if it were written this way,
you'll get a polite smile and a nod, and we will take that into
consideration in the next iteration. So, just by way of context, it is
a joint effort, and I hope we are capturing something useful that
expresses something the community believes in. Because personally, I
think the really novel thing is to stand up and say, there are formal
standards development organization in the world, and there are other
organizations that get together and are doing something that is
slightly different, being driven by different motivations. We are
seeking technical excellence, are dedicated to being open, are
dedicated to providing standards that will be built by industry. And
that isn't an immature form. We are hoping not to grow up into the
more traditional form. We are trying to make a statement so that more
people understand that this is a real thing, and that it is valuable.

Scott Bradner: I made some comments on this document to the authors. I
think it is a very important thing to say, for the reasons that Leslie
just described. But I do worry that it has to be accurate. And I do
believe that the specific text of the IPR section is not accurate, when
it comes to the IETF. And could be used against us because it is not
what we do.

Russ: Thank you, and I can tell you that those words are still under
discussion. The concerns that Cullen any you raised are representative
of a comment that I have already shared with the people trying to put
this to together

end clip

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
301 421 4138
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "IETF Chair" <>
To: "IETF-Announce" <>
Cc: "IAB" <>; "IETF" <>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:19 AM
Subject: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

> The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation
> of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found
> here:
> An earlier version was discussed in plenary, and the IAB Chair called
> for comments on the IETF mail list.  This version includes changes
> that address those comments.
> Th IETF 84 Administrative plenary minutes have been posted, so that
> discussion can be reviewed if desired.  The minutes are here:
> On 8 August 2012, the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors
> approved this version of the document.  The approval process is
> underway at the W3C as well.
> The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the
> next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the
> and the mailing lists by 2012-08-24.
> Thank you,
>  Russ Housley
>  IETF Chair