RE: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board

"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> Wed, 18 February 2009 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
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 959893A68A4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.127
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6]
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 FprYrk-ihw2m for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rosenlaw.com (rosenlaw.com [192.220.47.202]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD853A67D7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 31543 invoked by uid 12234); 18 Feb 2009 03:24:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO LROSENTOSHIBA) ([208.106.45.202]) (envelope-sender <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>) by 192.220.47.202 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for <ietf@ietf.org>; 18 Feb 2009 03:24:40 -0000
From: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20090217234217.D9FB66BE56A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20090217191240.029b7d57@cs.columbia.edu> <C12A100E0BB445E5B8C144839AE93A42@LROSENTOSHIBA> <20090218022441.GA3600@mini-me.lan>
Subject: RE: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:20 -0800
Organization: Rosenlaw & Einschlag
Message-ID: <BAE53BA5860F48C1B18FA0706837206A@LROSENTOSHIBA>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcmRcLvOvEtnTcy3RumTzaeuR9tpyQABaRYQ
In-Reply-To: <20090218022441.GA3600@mini-me.lan>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
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 03:24:37 -0000

Ted Ts'o wrote:
> So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and assume
> that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise to the
> reader"....  care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* it could
> be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, and still be
> useful in terms of meeting your stated goals? 

I've made no such assumptions. I've submitted a couple of process documents
from W3C that can be modified easily to fit the IETF model. I thought John
and Steven would be satisfied with a rough draft. Sort of like Windows might
provide a model for a Linux open source program, without the actual code
being yet written. :-)

Now that I've submitted this draft, I refuse to be told it isn't a draft,
although I admit it isn't in the proper format. Any process bigots want to
comment on that flaw tonight too?

I specifically said that the W3C Patent and Standards Working Group (PSIG)
charter (http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/) and *section 7* of the W3C Patent
Policy (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/) would be
models for an IETF IPR Advisory Board. Neither of those specific document
sections implies anything mandatory about RAND or royalty-free or any other
of the political patent battles that divide us. They are merely open process
descriptions, just like a draft here ought to be. 

/Larry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theodore Tso [mailto:tytso@mit.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:25 PM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
> 
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 05:40:46PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > Steven Bellovin wrote:
> > > All that said, the above is my strawman that I've just torched.  This
> > > is why we need a draft -- until we have one, we won't know if it's a
> > > plausible, useful idea or not.  In fact, a metadraft -- one that
> simply
> > > set out the questions that a concrete proposal should address -- would
> > > be a worthwhile contribution in its own regard.
> >
> > In honor of open source, I'm glad to submit someone else's work as my
> first
> > draft: http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/.
> >
> > This is an effective working model. I'm sure it would have to be revised
> to
> > fit IETF's more democratic operations.
> 
> This model works if you have closed working groups and no one is
> allowed to participate without first going through a huge amount of
> bureaucratic rigamarole, and where someone can't even poke their head
> into a meeting room without being explicitly invited by the chair.  It
> doesn't work at all in an IETF model which is much more open.
> 
> So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and assume
> that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise to the
> reader"....  care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* it could
> be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, and still be
> useful in terms of meeting your stated goals?
> 
>        	  	   	   - Ted