Re: Problem with new Note Well

On 1/27/2014 8:17 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> All - it is clear that you have a concern about the new note well text. The 
> problem has been well articulated;

Jari, et al,


There are a number of different problems, and only some of them have 
been articulated.  Worse, the problems include the IPR rules themselves, 
not just the Note Well:
     0.  We have had IPR rules and a Note Well for many years and have 
revised both a number of times.  Normally, work we do that has been 
around that long warrants being called "mature", which means that it 
works well and is well understood.  The latest discussion demonstrates 
that that model does not apply to the IETF's IPR handling.  In fact, the 
exchange looks more like the disparities we see early in a working group 
effort, not what normally takes place after many years.
     1. The participants in the discussion are extremely experienced 
with the IETF and with this topic.  Yet they demonstrated a strong 
/lack/ of rough consensus about what the /current/ IPR rules mean.
     2.  The current rules are too complex for use by average 
engineers.  Engineers are not attorneys, nevermind IPR attorneys.  IPR 
is considered by attorneys to be an esoteric and difficult specialty. 
The IETF's IPR rules need to be simple and simply stated, if we expect 
average engineers to understand them.
     3.  The current IPR rules appear to impose an unreasonable demand 
on IETF participants, such as conflicting with employment arrangements. 
(And if the demand is reasonable, then what is noteworthy is that 
someone who has read this latest IETF discussion has developed the 
impression that it isn't.  See point 6.)
     4.  The current Note Well is too complex and apparently erroneous. 
 (And if it is not erroneous, then what is noteworthy is that a serious 
attempt to review the thread has resulted in someone coming to the 
conclusion that the Note Well is erroneous.  See point 6.)
     5.  Expecting an average IETF engineer to consult 4 different 
BCPs, in order to understand what is required of them is not reasonable. 
 Nor is all each document relevant.  So, in effect, the references are 
overly broad, as well as too complicated. (See point 6.)
     6.  Having a range of experienced, diligent IETF participants 
demonstrate substantive disagreement about the meaning of our current 
IPR rules undermines whatever utility the rules might have.  It sets up 
a litigation argument that the participant did not understand the rules, 
citing this thread as demonstrating that others also don't.

The remedies we need are not just with the Note Well.  We need to fix 
the IPR rules too.

     0.  We need to establish clear and compelling community rough 
consensus about the meaning of our IPR rules and the utility of our Note 
Well.  We are currently /very/ far from being able to do that.
     1.  We need a consensus statement that describes our 'model' of an 
IETF particpant, in terms of what is reasonable for them to know and 
what is reasonable for them to be responsible for and what is reasonable 
for them to do, especially within the real time performance constraints 
of a working group meeting. The premise of that model needs to be 
extreme simplicity and clarity.  Any rules we assert need to be vetted 
against that model.  Our current arrangement requires an average 
engineer to be more knowledgeable and more diligent than is reasonable. 
 (By 'diligent' I'm not referring to intent; I'm referring to classic 
human factors usability limits.)
     2.  One of the distinctions in the latest discussion is between 
having the Note Well attempt to summarize what the IPR rules are, versus 
having it merely declare that we have IPR rules and point the reader to 
them.  For summary instruments, like a Note Well, the latter approach 
makes far more sense.
     3.  We need all of the IPR rules for IETF participation to be in a 
single, simple, clear document that is easily understandable by an 
average engineer. (See point 1.)

d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net