Actually, I saw the quesiton of whether the charter should be
extended into re-visiting the patent rules fairly discussed in the
working group. (Which is the usual place to decide if we even want
to do the work.) You were aware of and involved in the
discussion. The rough consensus of the working group was that there
was not a need to revisit the existing IETF patent policy. So the
chairs did not ask the IESG to consider making such a change.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 06:45 PM 10/19/2007, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
> Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position. You actually
> want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of
> the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the community actually
> discuss it. Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your consistency.
You're welcome. To state it more fairly, I want the result I'm arguing for
to be built into the charter so that the WG can examine fairly what it will
take to reach that goal. The WG cannot adopt a policy for IETF, only propose
one. But the WG's work should be goal-directed.
By the way, that's not such a change of tactic for that particular IPR-WG.
You previously argued in committee that the current IETF patent policy is
NOT a problem, and in that spirit the IPR-WG previously buried every
counter-proposal we made as "off-charter"! So let's play the charter game
fairly, please, by the same rules you played them. Let's charter the IPR-WG
to develop a proposal that achieves a specific goal to fix a perceived
patent problem. You can always argue against it in committee or vote against
it if a serious proposal toward that goal gets before the IETF as a whole.
/Larry Rosen
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf