-----Original Message-----
From: WGChairs [mailto:wgchairs-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: 29 January 2014 10:39
To: ietf
Cc: Cullen Jennings (fluffy); IETF WG Chairs
Subject: Re: Problem with new Note Well
I agree with the suggestions below and that I never liked the
note well wordings. In addition, from Cullen's first message
and others, it seems like most IETF participants are not
practicing or understandning the note well. The reason may be
because engineers are not good in legal issues, so do we have
a current legal advisor/position in IETF organisation, or
still IETF has no progress in legal experience, so we will
need to go back to external legal. Why IETF just leaves its
participants alone to do the legal advise but when it comes
to their works it encourages inputs? Does the note well
consider all countries/regions legal policies? Is it
practical/agreeable for all participants any where, or was it tested?
For me I don't agree with the way the note well is forced on
all, it needs more discussions between WGs and their Chairs,
but no time for it or no advisors or group discussion/meeting
for legal issues (may be only IESG decides for us so far
which is never practical).
AB
On 1/27/14, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
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