RE: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Wed, 18 February 2009 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D5C28C164 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:49:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y-6yy48q1FsO for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:49:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1B228C133 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:49:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id D72BC6BE56A; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:49:45 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
Message-Id: <20090218014945.D72BC6BE56A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:49:45 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:49:35 -0000

    > From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>

    > This is an effective working model. I'm sure it would have to be
    > revised to fit IETF's more democratic operations.

That's not the only change it would need:

  W3C will not approve a Recommendation if it is aware that Essential Claims
  exist which are not available on Royalty-Free terms.

That contradicts an IETF policy position which I would suggest is unlikely to
change (not that I personally have a strong preference for one alternative or
the other, mind).

	Noel