Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

The IPR-WG charter is half the problem here IMHO. The IPR WG needs to be the 
ONLY PLACE within the IETF that IPR and Participation Control issues are 
addressed. They do not belong in the IETF@IETF.ORG WG since they are 
pertinent to IPR issues directly.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott W Brim" <sbrim@cisco.com>
To: "Thierry Moreau" <thierry.moreau@connotech.com>
Cc: <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg 
and IESG

> If I understand correctly, you are saying that a Working Group should
> take technical issues into account just as much as it takes IPR
> encumbrance into account.  Is that right?
>
> swb
>
> On 06/05/2007 09:24 AM, Thierry Moreau allegedly wrote:
>> For your information:
>>
>> In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made
>> an a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered
>> alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management.
>> I spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it
>> relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.
>>
>> Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC, it
>> becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously restrict
>> IETF activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.
>>
>> Conversely, it reinforces the economic incentive for medium and large
>> organizations to isolate the individuals participating in the IETF
>> activities from the patent application management process.
>>
>> Also, the above draft publication decision, in a context where the
>> problem area is still lacking a solution with a reasonable explicit
>> security model, is an empirical observation of the IETF strong
>> preference for "ignoring the technology" (instead of "ignoring the IPR")
>> when a tradeoff has to be made. Inescapably then, the aggregate scope
>> and field of application of IETF protocols is deemed to shrink as
>> innovation enhances the networking technology.
>>
>> Please note that I am not well aware of the detailed procedural and
>> institutional arrangements that implement RFC3979, before the appeal
>> process can correct deviations. While I was participating in the above
>> matter, I chose not to rely on the appeal process, perhaps because it
>> wasn't clear to me how things should have gone in the first place.
>>
>> P.S. Since even RFC3979 itself is absent from the IETF ipr wg charter;
>> perhaps the above is totally off-topic.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg