Settlement proposal - Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy

[TSG <[e-mail]>]

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 2:11 PM -0800 2/16/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>   
>> Let's forget the past; I acknowledge we lost that argument then among those
>> few who bothered to hum.
>>     
>
> Many of us have heard this in various technical working groups when people who didn't get their way come back later. Such reconsiderations, particularly on topics of a non-protocol nature, are rarely embraced. We are humans with limited time and energy and focus.
>
>   
>> But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a
>> loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune?
>>     
>
> No, it is a statement that a group of people who are not active in the IETF want us to spend our time and effort to fix a problem they feel that they have.
>
>   
>> This is not
>> the first such open source campaign either. IETF needs a more sturdy process
>> to deal with IPR issues. Please consider the suggestions now on the table.
>>     
>
> Where? I see no Internet Draft, nor any significant group of people who have said they are willing to work on the problem. Seriously, if this is a significant issue for this motivated group of people, they can do some research and write one (or probably more) Internet Drafts.
>
> The IETF has never been swayed by blitzes of a mailing list asking for us to do someone else's technical work; we should not be swayed by similar blitzes asking us to do their policy work. We are, however, amazingly (and sometime painfully) open to discussing worked-out solutions of either a technical or policy nature. In this case, "worked-out" means a document that describes the the current solution, the advantages and disadvantages of it, a proposal for a new solution, and a transition plan.
>   
You mean solutions which amuse or are acceptable to the parties directly 
managing the IETF today, rather than to the IETF's victims, err members.
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
>   
The IETF needs a licensing irrelevant model for creating 
interoperability standards for networking models of all types. If fact 
if people want to create a IETF standard why should anyone here want to 
stop them except to prevent that protocol from coming to use, which 
means that the IETF has become a political entity serving to prevent 
some entities from being able to productize their efforts meaning that 
the actions of the IETF itself become adversarial to anyone outside of 
those that the Standards Trolls want to allow through the IETF.


> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>   
Settlement proposal -