ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Problem with new Note Well

2014-01-29 12:09:56
Agreed. IETF is not unique in this.

The point was to try and explain why individual participants in other SDOs may 
not have realised how they were committed to similar rules, although they are 
generally reminded of that commitment at the start of every meeting.

Regards

Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com] 
Sent: 29 January 2014 16:16
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: ietf; IETF WG Chairs
Subject: Re: Problem with new Note Well

Hi Keith,

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:31 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) 
<keith(_dot_)drage(_at_)alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com> wrote:
In regard to "all countries / regions" the disclosure 
requirements are not that different from the disclosure 
requirements of every SDO, all with memberships from just 
about every country in the world.

I would have expected that if there was a legal problem 
with disclosure, then it would have been spotted by now, 
given the level of test it has been given by all those SDOs.

The difference with IETF is with representation by 
individual. For the SDOs the membership is by company or 
equivalent, and they sign up (on behalf of all their 
employees or consultants) to the disclosure requirements when 
they join the SDO.

The IETF is by no means unique in this regard. IEEE 802 and 
all its working groups (802.3 (Ethernet), 802.11 (Wi-Fi), 802.15
(Bluetooth/Zigbee/etc)) all have "representation by individual".

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA  d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com


But in general the disclosure requires as defined in RFC 
3979 are not that complex and it is entirely reasonable that 
all participants should be required to read it. I do not 
believe it requires a trained legal expert to understand it.

And as for being left alone, if you really are an 
individual (alone) with "contributor's IPR" or "participants 
IPR" then you are paying any awful lot of legal fees to keep 
that IPR; why not spend some of it on your responsibilities to IETF.

As for consultants, if you are paid to participate in the 
IETF, then you should ensure your contract allows you to meet 
the requirements of the IETF. It might help if RFC 3979 made 
this point, but it should be self evident anyway.

Regards

Keith

-----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




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>