On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:32:21 -0700
"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com> wrote:
I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask
that we NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its
charter is revised to allow it to *completely revise* IETF's IPR
policies with respect to patents.
This issue was "strangled in committee" the last time the IPR-WG
addressed RAND and other IPR policies for industry standards, with
the WG leaders insisting (erroneously in my opinion) that there was
consensus NOT to address the problems that the current IETF patent
polices pose for open source *and* proprietary implementations of
supposedly open standards.
However it has to be done, I ask that IETF not let that burial happen
again. Let's first charter the IPR-WG to completely reconsider the
IETF patent policy in light of new software industry expectations,
and so that we get rid of the inadequate RAND (and even non-RAND)
IETF IPR policies that currently exist.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled
to their own facts." -- (U.S.) Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
The original charter of the IPR working group was to clarify the IETF's
patent documents. As chair, I promised the WG that once those
documents were finished, we'd discuss rechartering. That happened, and
went on for many months. You're welcome to consult the mailing list
archives for that discussion.
At the Atlanta IETF (November 2002), the WG meeting was polled.
According to the minutes
(http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/130.htm), there was no
consensus to recharter.
The discussion continued; at the next IETF (San Francisco, March 2003),
the room was polled again. The minutes
(http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/132.htm) say "fairly clear
consensus against rechartering."
Per IETF procedures, I took the matter to the mailing list; see
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg00962.html
I did my level best to run an open, honest poll. I announced the
result two weeks later:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg01195.html
You're welcome to consult the archives yourself to verify my count --
per my first note, I asked (and took technical measures to ensure) that
votes were public.
The issue was very widely discussed during the process, both within the
IPR WG and elsewhere. It was covered in the trade press; see, for
example,
http://www.news.com/Free-software-gadfly-takes-on-Net-group/2100-1001_3-971124.html
Note this quote, btw:
Judging by an informal poll at the group's Atlanta meeting,
that movement isn't gaining any momentum with the current
membership, according to both Perens and the group's chair,
Steve Bellovin.
Bruce Perens is a well-known open source activist who spoke quite
often on the subject in the WG. The final result was described at
http://www.news.com/Standards-group-beats-back-patent-foes/2100-1013_3-996351.html
To summarize: I did my level best to ensure a fair consensus call. I
stand by my statement then that the consensus of the group was against
rechartering. If you have evidence to the contrary, I think you should
produce it. I also assert -- though this is more of an opinion -- that
given the structure of the IETF, where anyone could participate in any
WG meeting, the notion of "strangling in committee" a major issue
simply doesn't apply. In a legislative body, with a fixed set of
voting members, that can happen; I don't think it can happen in the
IETF unless there's a complete absence of publicity -- and that
certainly wasn't the case here.
Now -- it's been 4.5 years since that consensus call, and perhaps the
world and the IETF have changed enough since then that it's worth
reopening the question. I doubt it, but my involvement with the IETF
over the last three years has been much less than it was before that.
(And I'm no longer the co-chair of the IPR WG, so any future efforts
wouldn't be my problem.) That said, the IETF does not operate as a
committee of the whole; it's just too big. Any proposed policy change
will have to be taken up by *some* WG, whether the current IPR WG or a
new one. If you think a new effort might be fruitful, I suggest you
discuss how to proceed with Russ Housley, the IETF chair and General
AD, and Harald Alvestrand, the current IPR WG chair. You may be right
about the present and the future -- but let's not try to rewrite the
past.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf