Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

At 4:49 PM -0800 2/16/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>Paul Hoffman wants:
>> 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.
>
>Paul, I'm not sure what more you're asking for at this stage.

You removed the part where I said exactly what I was asking for:

At 3:19 PM -0800 2/16/09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>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.

This is how things get done in the IETF.

>This list is
>lively with suggestions, convincing me that IPR issues continue to dominate
>the IETF airwaves.

This is not how things get done in the IETF.

> A "worked-out" document would be premature in this
>context.

We fully disagree.

>One suggestion, now a specific topic on this list if you care to respond
>directly, is for the creation of an IETF IPR Advisory Board to help people
>everywhere--including thousands of disaffected FSF campaigners--to
>understand why certain patents (including the Redphone "patent") are not
>worth worrying about.

That's silly.

- Many patents are worth worrying about. No one has claimed any different.

- If there are "thousands of disaffected FSF campaigners", this should be the FSF IPR Advisory Board. You have yet to explain why the aggrieved party is not willing to do the work to make themselves happy.

- The IETF does not create advisory boards, so we would need to spend even more time on IETF process before doing this.

You are, again, volunteering other people's time to do work you want done. Imagine what the response from rational busy people will be.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium