Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR?

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 07:40:19PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> (Removing the IETF list)
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Job Snijders [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Subject: draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR?
> > 
> >     """Licensing Declaration to be Provided Later (implies a
> >     willingness to commit to the provisions of a), b), or c) above
> >     to all implementers; otherwise, the next option 'Unwilling to
> >     Commit to the Provisions of a), b), or c) Above'. - must be
> >     selected)"""
> > 
> > The IPR statement was submitted on July 21, 2014.  I am not sure what
> > the capitalisation of the words "Provided Later" signifies - but surely
> > the purpose of this process is not to stall and leave a document in
> > limbo forever. 
> > 
> > A promise such as "soon" is appreciated, but not sufficient:
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/SbwMA57ebzMjKwaphz6AZzliMM
> 
> This is the latest information I (I am the IETF participant whose
> belief triggered the disclosure) have as of right now: the patent has
> not been issued, and so Verisign does not know which, if any, claims
> will be allowed. The disclosure will be updated when the application
> process has been completed by the patent office.

Dear Scott,

There can be any number of years between filing and issuance, there is
no assurance that USPTO will be able to progress the application in the
immediate or distant future.

How does the Internet community benefit from not having a standardized
way to securely transfer domainnames?

I have to ask: is VeriSign purposefully obstructing the publication of
the draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay document?

Because Verisign still has the option to provide a more detailed
Licensing Declaration ahead of the issuance, covering whatever claims
(if any) will be allowed.

Why has Versign choosen not to provide a Licensing Declaration such as
option A ('no license'), B ('Free RAND'), C ('RAND') or E ('NOPE')?

In failing to provide clarity to the internet engineering community,
Verisign is arguably obstructing much needed internet security
mechanisms. 

Regards,

Job