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
|
|