unsubscribe

[Daniel Maia <[e-mail]>]

On 26/01/2012 17:54, [e-mail] wrote:
> If you have received this digest without all the individual message
> attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
> subscription.  To do so, go to
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get
> MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME.  You can set this option
> globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.
>
>
>
> Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
> 	[e-mail]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	[e-mail]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	[e-mail]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: Second Last	Call:
>        <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt>	(Sieve	Notifica	tion
>        Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard (John C Klensin)
>     2. encouraging compliance with IPR disclosure rules
>        (Peter Saint-Andre)
>     3. RE: Second Last Call:
>        <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt>	(Sieve	Notification
>        Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard (Worley, Dale R (Dale))
>     4. Re: Second Last Call:
>        <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt>	(Sieve	Notification
>        Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard (Pete Resnick)
>     5. Re: encouraging compliance with IPR disclosure rules (SM)
>     6. Re: Violation of IETF process (todd glassey)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:37:06 -0500
> From: John C Klensin<[e-mail]>
> To: Pete Resnick<[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Second Last	Call:
> 	<draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt>	(Sieve	Notifica	tion
> 	Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
> Message-ID:<[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
> --On Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:08 -0600 Pete Resnick
> <[e-mail]>  wrote:
>
>> As I've mentioned to others, since I'm one of the people who
>> will have to judge the consensus on this question, my comments
>> will remain strictly based on the facts of the events as I
>> know them and on the relevant IETF procedures. It is up to the
>> IETF community to decide on what the appropriate course of
>> action shall be. That said, I have some comments and questions:
>>
>> On 1/26/12 3:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that a key question here is whether the
>>> original author's decision to not disclose was made in
>>> violation of company policy or whether the sequence of
>>> posting the I-D, getting the document through the WG and Last
>>> Call, and then posting the disclosure is a matter of company
>>> policy.
>> We were told by the other company employees who facilitated
>> the disclosures, at the time of the disclosures, that this was
>> strictly an individual's failure to comply with the IETF IPR
>> Policy, that the author in question claims not to have
>> understood the IETF IPR Policy, and that the company proceeded
>> to make these disclosures as soon as it discovered that this
>> IPR existed. I have no information to contradict that claim.
> Excellent.   I had hoped that was the situation.  It obviously
> makes things much easier (and some of my earlier comments
> irrelevant).   With all the effort we go to ("Note Well" and
> otherwise) to be sure that people are informed about the policy,
> I have trouble generating sympathy for someone who says "didn't
> underatand", but that is another matter (and perhaps just my
> problem).
>
>>> Consequently, I believe that at least the following should be
>>> required:
>>>
>>> (1) Revision of the IPR statement so it identifies the
>>> responsible individual by name, department, and title.  I do
>>> not believe that the rather anonymous "Director of Licensing"
>>> is compliant with the intent of the IPR disclosure rules.   I
>>> will leave it to the lawyers to advise on whether a document
>>> issued without the name (not just title) of a responsible
>>> individual would even be held to be valid in the various
>>> jurisdictions in which the patent might be recognized.
>>>
>> Are you asking that the IPR statements be updated with the
>> name, department, and title of the "Director of Licensing", or
>> that of the author of the documents and patents in question?
> The former.
>
>> It seems to me that the former is a procedural question that
>> is separate from the disposition of these particular
>> documents, and seems like a reasonable requirement for any IPR
>> disclosure.
> That is correct.  I believe I suggested in a later note that
> this is an area to which it would be good if the Trust paid some
> attention and advised the Secretariat and others accordingly.
>
>>> (2) A request to the company involved for someone who can
>>> formally speak for that company to publicly clarify that this
>>> sequence of behavior occurred in violation of company policy.
>>> If there are internal rewards to individuals for filing and/or
>>> being awarded patents, I assume that a decision that the
>>> actions violate company policy would cause such awards to be
>>> withheld in this case, even though the IETF would have no way
>>> to verify whether or not that occurred.
>> The IETF Chair has in the past sent messages to companies to
>> inquire about their handling of IPR disclosures, so I imagine
>> such a message could be sent if the IETF community desires it.
> That was my assumption.  On the other hand, if it is already
> clear that this was either a misunderstanding, a violation of
> company policy, or both, it might not be necessary.
>
>>> (3) A request to the company involved to remove the
>>> reciprocity clause from the license stated in the disclosure
>>> statement.  As a show of good faith, they should agree to
>>> derive no benefit from the patent other than what praise
>>> accrues from having it awarded.
>> I'll ask to bring this topic up with the IETF attorney. I am
>> pretty sure we can *ask* that they do this as a show of good
>> faith. I am also pretty certain that we can't negotiate the
>> terms of a license agreement.
> I was only suggesting asking.  If they say "no", which they
> obviously have the right to do, it is, as others have pointed
> out, the WG's problem to consider what that is an issue.  If the
> WG is indifferent on the issue, it seems to me that the relevant
> AD has a problem, but that problem is _not_ bound to the
> disclosure issue.
>
>>> (4) Removal of the offending individual from the list of
>>> authors to the acknowledgments with text similar to that
>>> suggested by Adrian.  Unless the company involved is willing
>>> to provide the clarification suggested in (2) above, and
>>> possibly the license modification suggested in (3) above, all
>>> names of authors associated with that company should be
>>> removed to the acknowledgements and the company affiliation
>>> explicitly identified there.  In either case, this should be
>>> viewed as a response to a policy violation and not entangled
>>> with any more general discussion of listed authors on I-Ds or
>>> RFCs.
>> Of course, removal of individual document editors is well
>> within the rights and responsibilities of the chairs, so if
>> this is the consensus of the IETF, I am sure it can be done.
> That was my assumption.
>
>> I
>> would like you to elaborate on the issue of the authors who
>> are employees of the company but *not* the author of the
>> patent in question. Are you saying that their names should be
>> removed because, as co-workers of the author in question, they
>> ought to have known (or been more diligent in confirming) that
>> the IPR existed and therefore should be sanctioned for failing
>> to comply with the IPR rules, or are you saying that this is a
>> sanction that should be levied against the company and
>> therefore its employees?
> If the other authors from that company have already told us that
> they were not aware of the patent application until very late in
> the process and that they moved diligently toward getting an
> appropriate disclosure filed as soon as they did find out, my
> suggestion is moot.
>
> I was concerned about the (thoroughly unlikely in this case)
> possibility that the other authors from that company were
> personally aware of the IPR but had been, e.g., advised that
> they were not to make the disclosure because someone else would
> take responsibility for it.
>
>> I will note that RFC 3979 does not
>> put a responsibility on individual participants to go discover
>> IPR that may exist, nor does it make any overt requirements of
>> companies since it applies only to the individual participants
>> in the IETF (caveat the recognitions in sections 6.6 and 7).
> Understood.  My separate concerns about the implications of that
> policy should a company ever choose to deliberately hide
> relevant IPR from IETF participants do not apply to this case
> and should not be part of the discussion.
>
>>> (5) Unless the clarification suggested in (2) can be provided,
>>> each IETF participant who is associated with the relevant
>>> company and who is in an IETF-related leadership or
>>> decision-making position (WG Chairs; Editors; IESG, IAB, IAOC,
>>> Nomcom, members; etc.) should be asked to make a conscientious
>>> personal review as to whether this type of action sufficiently
>>> compromises his or her position that resignation or some other
>>> action would be appropriate and, as appropriate, to review
>>> IETF policies with whatever management chains are relevant.
>>> I am _not_ suggesting that anyone be asked to resign, only
>>> that they engage in careful consideration of the issues and
>>> their implications.
>> I believe this last one is outside of the scope of the
>> decisions the IETF has to take regarding the disposition of
>> the particular documents. It may indeed be reasonable for
>> every IETF participant to review the policies and actions of
>> their own employer as they relate to IETF participation and
>> make a conscientious decision whether they can continue to
>> participate in the IETF, whatever their role, given those
>> policies and procedures.
> Complete agreement.  I would, for the record, make much the same
> suggestion about behavior in other situations that appeared to
> push the boundaries of codes of professional ethics of the
> professional societies of which many of us are members.  Like
> the IETF's IPR rules, those provisions are intended to be taken
> seriously rather than as decoration that can be safely ignored.
> The issue is an individual one, not an IETF one, and the current
> issue is relevant only insofar as it should encourage all of us
> --not just those involved in this document-- to take our various
> personal and professional obligations seriously and to consider
> the implications of circumstances in which various of them might
> come into conflict.
>
> best,
>      john
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:40:20 -0700
> From: Peter Saint-Andre<[e-mail]>
> To: SM<[e-mail]>
> Cc: Pete Resnick<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> Subject: encouraging compliance with IPR disclosure rules
> Message-ID:<[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> [ - [e-mail] ]
>
> On 1/26/12 10:15 AM, SM wrote:
>> Hi Pete,
>> At 08:08 26-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>> As I've mentioned to others, since I'm one of the people who will have
>>> to judge the consensus on this question, my comments will remain
>>> strictly based on the facts of the events as I know them and on the
>>> relevant IETF procedures. It is up to the IETF community
>> The status of the memo in the drafts have this statement:
>>
>>    "This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
>>     provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79."
>>
>> Have the authors been asked whether they have any issue with the above?
>>
>> The is a question in the write-up: "Has an IPR disclosure related to
>> this document been filed?"  Has the Document Shepherd been asked about
>> that before the Second Last Call?
>>
>> The minutes from the last WG session does not mention who chaired the
>> session.  Did the WG Chair bring the Note Well to the attention of the WG?
> In my opinion, we need to think more creatively about ways to encourage
> compliance with the IPR disclosure rules. Tim Polk and I wrote an I-D on
> the topic last year. Feedback would be welcome.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-00
>
> Peter
>