Re: [NSIS] IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia University inthe City of New York's Statement about IPRrelated to draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13

I'll be resubmitting the IPR disclosure soon.  Furthermore, I'll  
endeavor to stay on top of this duty to disclose ipr  from this point  
forward.

Best Regards,

Sent from my iPhone.

Calvin Chu
Senior Licensing Officer
Columbia Technology Ventures
http://www.stv.columbia.edu
Twitter: cchu

On Dec 15, 2010, at 1:08 PM, "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> Agreed. I think an RFC 1988-style IPR declaration is a good outcome.
>
> Thanks Calvin.
>
> On Dec 15, 2010, at 2:00 AM, Jukka Manner wrote:
>
>> Hi Calvin,
>>
>> Thanks for working strongly to resolve this. Your proposal sounds  
>> good to me.
>>
>> Jukka
>>
>> On 12/14/2010 12:36 AM, Calvin Chu wrote:
>>> I have Columbia's backing to offer a Cisco style declaration of IPR.
>>> This declaration may deprecate/take precedence over what was  
>>> previously
>>> submitted.
>>>
>>> Those that feel strongly about this may email me offline.
>>>
>>> As mentioned, I'd like to minimize the stepping of toes at this  
>>> point
>>> with the goal of maintaining the draft where it was.  If this is the
>>> preferred route to do this then I'll plan to resubmit soon.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Calvin Chu
>>> Senior Licensing Officer
>>> Columbia Technology Ventures
>>> http://techventures.columbia.edu
>>> Tel: (212) 851-4140
>>> Twitter: cchu
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nsis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces@ietf.org] On  
>>> Behalf Of
>>> Calvin Chu
>>> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 6:06 PM
>>> To: Roland Bless
>>> Cc: Georgios Karagiannis; nsis@ietf.org; Jukka Manner
>>> Subject: Re: [NSIS] IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia  
>>> University
>>> inthe City of New York's Statement about IPRrelated to
>>> draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13
>>>
>>> See below, and here.
>>>
>>> Currently I've made it a priority to review the Cisco style  
>>> disclosure
>>> with Columbia.  In the meantime, it's my priority to work out to the
>>> satisfaction of the members here to allow this draft to remain.  I  
>>> am
>>> working on this.
>>>
>>> Calvin Chu
>>> Senior Licensing Officer
>>> Columbia Technology Ventures
>>> http://techventures.columbia.edu
>>> Tel: (212) 851-4140
>>> Twitter: cchu
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Roland Bless [mailto:roland.bless@kit.edu]
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> Since we have an open implementation that's fine, but IMHO the
>>> following
>>>> cited text is not 100% clear that this is also guaranteed if the
>>>> specification will once change to standards track. So if you  
>>>> could make
>>>> it clear that the last point doesn't apply to the open-software and
>>>> development activities, it would be better.
>>>
>>> Regardless of track, if it's open source, then it's FREE.
>>>
>>>>> The other point of contention is the FRAND terms in the  
>>>>> situation it
>>>>> becomes a protocol standard, and even then, only in the non-open
>>> source
>>>>> case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the issue: A) The fact that the fee is unknown B) The fact that
>>> there
>>>>> is a fee at all or C) desire to see better conformance of  
>>>>> disclosure
>>>>> such as use of the Cisco style IPR disclosure
>>>
>>>> I would say B) and A) in that order :-), i.e.
>>>> if you remove any fee, it would cause no problem, but if you keep
>>>> the fee, it would be good to say something about it.
>>>
>>> I'm looking into the suggestion on the Cisco style IPR disclosure --
>>> still need about a day or so to get some consensus.
>>>
>>> I was earlier under the impression that this RFC was unlikely to  
>>> exit
>>> Experimental status so no details were worked out for what that  
>>> fee may
>>> be.  It would be unacceptable to us for this fee to prohibit  
>>> legitimate
>>> use, except, at the time I entered the disclosure (as well as  
>>> now), the
>>> threshold for what would be prohibitive isn't known to me.  The  
>>> members
>>> of the list would likely know better than me on these matters.
>>>
>>> If it's case (A) above, we can declare a hard upper limit the
>>> uncertainty is removed from the system.  If (A) is unacceptable at  
>>> any
>>> value, in any case, I'm simultaneously passing around the Cisco  
>>> style
>>> disclosure.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nsis mailing list
>>> nsis@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
>>
>> -- 
>> Jukka MJ Manner, Professor, PhD.  Phone:  +358+(0)9+470 22481
>> Aalto University                  Mobile: +358+(0)50+5112973
>> Department of Communications      Fax:    +358+(0)9+470 22474
>> and Networking (Comnet)           Office: G320a (Otakaari 5A)
>> P.O. Box 13000, FIN-00076 Aalto   E-mail: jukka.manner@tkk.fi
>> Finland                           WWW:    www.comnet.tkk.fi
>> _______________________________________________
>> nsis mailing list
>> nsis@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
>