RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

[Michael Cameron <[e-mail]>]

John said:

As a random member of the community, whether I'm participating in a WG, or even actively monitoring it, is fairly clear.  If, for example, I'm attending its meetings (f2f or remotely) or signed up for its mailing list, the community should be able to assume that I'm watching the work in that WG and should be required to make relevant IPR disclosures even if I don't actually say anything or otherwise generate Contributions.    

My response:

I appreciate that some are advocating for what they want the rules to be, but let's level set as to what they are.  Attending meetings, being signed up for mailing lists or watching work in a WG does not obligate one to make any IPR disclosures.  That was discussed in detail at the last IETF meeting when the IPR Group met (Orlando, IIRC). The IPR disclosure obligation arises only with respect to known IPR reading on Contributions (for Contributors) and for non-Contributors, the disclosure obligation only applies to known IPR reading on a draft on which such non-Contributor actively seeks to influence the outcome of the disposition of a draft (active participation).

John said:

If you are the AD responsible for a WG, then I think the community gets to assume that you know what its work items are, have approved document editors, and have at least read the abstracts of the various drafts, i.e., that you are participating.  If you are some other AD in the same area, well, areas differ a lot and over time.  In some cases, ADs shadow each other as a mutual backup arrangements and I'd expect to be able to treat all ADs in the same area as "participating" in all WGs.  In others, WGs get divided up among ADs, after which the area might as well be as many separate ones as there are ADs.  At IETF evaluation time, any ADs who record a position other that "abstain" on a spec, or to engage in any IESG discussion about it, has presumably studied that spec closely enough to incur disclosure obligations if IPR is known to them because making a decision to adopt (or not) is clearly "participation".  The same issue might exist with Co-chairs of a WG with many tasks.  I'd normally assume that each one is familiar with and participating in every work item, but it isn't hard to imagine situations in which work might be split up along clear boundaries with one co-chair getting involved in the work of the other only at around the time of Last Call if then.

My response:

We need to be careful not to place on Area Directors unreasonable burdens and obligations.  Further, there needs to be certainty as to what the obligations are.   The obligations imposed on Area Directors to declare known IPR should be limited to those activities in which they actively participate.  I'll defer to the ADs, but I would think that an AD acting on a recommendation or advice from a WG as to how to proceed on a Specification, without more, does not necessarily rise to the level of active participation.

Best, Mike