Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec discussion in Thursday agenda slot

[Gaelle Martin-Cocher <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Rob, 

And I agree with Ted, that helps.
I may have missed the point that the consensus call will happen after this meeting and before the berlin meeting.  I apologize for that. 
I want to clarify as well that I never asked to postponed the technical discussion.
Would it be suitable to set-up an adhoc meeting/call (after Orlando/before Berlin) when more information will be available so that legal experts can participate, ask questions, ideally reach a consensus?
Resuming the technical discussion and having the final consensus call should be much easier then.

Thank you
Sincerely,
Gaëlle


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:17 PM
To: Ted Hardie
Cc: David Singer; Gaelle Martin-Cocher; Stuart Cheshire; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec discussion in Thursday agenda slot

On 3/12/13 3:39 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM, David Singer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> * The decision rests on (at least) late-breaking news, and 
>> unavailable information, and I am opposed to any move to get a >formal decision for a mandatory video codec at the meeting.
>>
>>
> Hi David, Gaelle,
>
> I am glad that we all agree that the technical discussion is needed 
> and can go forward.
>
> On the IPR issue, my understanding is that Robert will call for a 
> sense of the room on who believes that they have enough data now to 
> make decision and, if not, what exactly is needed.
I do not believe we can call for consensus on this question at this meeting.

We _do_ need to have the technical discussions.

I am planning to take the sense of the room using the questions that have already been published. These are not going to make a decision on their own, but may help with reading consensus when we do make that call.

I do expect the working group to have this consensus call soon. As the chairs have mentioned earlier in the thread, we hope to make this call on the list in the next few weeks, ->well before the IETF87 meeting in Berlin<-. We understand there needs to be some lead time.

RjS

>   That will occur
> *before* any discussion on which will be chosen.  I am confident he is 
> aware of the discussion on the list to date from those who are already 
> indicating their preferences to wait for more information, but I have 
> cc'ed him explicitly on this message so he can confirm.
>
> As noted before, none of the chairs will be making the calls related 
> to the codec question.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie


---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.