Harald,
I am unable to be in Vancouver for the meeting, but I hope that someone else
there will support the re-charter of the IPR WG as I suggested in my earlier
email:
***************
I request that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and
procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result
in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents.
***************
I also hope that a decision on this will not be based simply on who attends
in Vancouver, but on a wider representative vote of IETF participants.
/Larry Rosen
-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:31 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
As it looks now, the IPR WG's meeting in Vancouver will not be extremely
contentious.
So, while priority MUST be given to finishing the WG's current work
(copyrights), it seems reasonable to offer a time slot to proposals to
recharter the WG to deal with patent issues.
I think we can offer at least some time for face-to-face discussion of the
issues - but in order to have a more focused discussion than a general
discussion on whether or not anything needs to be done,
The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are:
- No changes are necessary. The IPR WG can shut down.
- A change is necessary, and a specific proposal is deemed closest to what
the community wants. We can process a recharter request soon after the
IETF
meeting.
- A change is necessary, but no consensus on what change exists. More
discussion is necessary.
- No consensus can be reached on whether or not a change is necessary.
I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text
(preferably published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as
possible:
- What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent
policy
- What changes in overall direction they think the WG should address
- What the charter for this activity should look like
If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each
submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at
least half an hour for general discussion.
Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of
draft-<submitter>-ipr-patent-<something> - that would make it easy for us
to find them all.
The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the
rechartering discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf