Transcript courtesy of Renee Cohen (www.ecaptions.com). Posted by permission, on the condition that the source is properly credited.



IETF, Intellectual Property meeting, 
July 19, 2002, at 9 a.m.  
 
         NEW SPEAKER:  We're can going to 
get started.  I'm Steve somebody and Rob, 
and we are your flight crew for this 
running venture.  If you're not fascinated 
by IPR, you may go back to sleep, if you 
don't have anything else scheduled this 
morning.  There's many fine sights in this 
lovely country.  If you are interested in 
IPR, you're in the right place.  The 
traditional first thing, the blue sheets 
are going around and then agenda bashing.  
Does anybody want to make any changes to a 
agenda? 
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  We also need a 
scribe, does anyone want to take notes.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We need one lawyer 
and one engineer.  At least two people 
taking notes.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We'll put your 
slides in, I replied, and we'll put them in 
at the beginning of that 45 minute section, 
with the presentations.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  So depending on how 
the 2026 discussions go, can we talk about 
bullet three in the chart, which was rules 
of thumb for working group chairs.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  You can try, yes.  
We'll focus on that in the last part.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Right.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Are you still 
looking for, something I didn't hear.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Are you a 
lawyer or an engineer?   
         ( Still looking for somebody to 
take notes I think.   )
         NEW SPEAKER:  Any other changes to 
the charter?  The other ones are rolling 
off the bottom, but we'll worry about those 
later. 
         Okay.  First item to the agenda 
then is the proposed charter.  You have all 
seen it in the e-mail.  Before we actually 
start, the goal of the work is to clarify 
2026, that's the initial goal. 
         It isn't clear enough what the 
rules actually are.  I've been an A D only 
three and a half months, I've already been 
asked at least three times exactly what the 
policy means.  Who is entitled to make what 
decisions in the face of what IPR?  We also 
had other issues come up, such as 
trademark.  We've got the note well 
statement that has been in the registration 
packets on mailing lists introductions and 
so on for a while now. 
         We, even if we do nothing else in 
this working group, we absolutely have to 
spin the documents just to make all that 
stuff clear.  We don't settle for protocol 
specs that don't tell you how to implement.  
We have a process spec that doesn't tell 
working group chairs how to do that.  So we 
have to clarify that. 
         But, there is un happy necessary 
happyness, with 24 community.  It would not 
be fair to have an IPR working group that 
wasn't at least open to the possibility of 
changing that policy. 
         That's the sort of thing that will 
take a much stronger and broader consensus, 
because very significant change in our 
rules, so charter requires, the proposed 
charter will require a re chartering by the 
I S G, to do that if there was strong 
consensus in this room with a changed IPR 
patent policy.  We're not ruling it out.  
We're just saying we have another task that 
has to be done, even if we don't do the 
larger more controversial one.  But it is 
open.  It is open to discussion, as one of 
the things that is on the agenda for today. 
         So we will ask about the mailing 
list, the mailing list is up on the screen.  
The usual request address for subscriptions 
and archives are out there as well.  
         NEW SPEAKER:  The current two 
drafts that are under discussion, these two 
will come up in a if you minutes.  But 
first let's discuss the charter.  Does 
anybody have any comments on the proposed 
charter? 
         Are people happy with the notion 
that we'll focus first on clarifying 2026, 
and look for a broader consensus on 
changing the patent policy? 
         Without objection, it's so 
ordered.  So we're ahead of schedule, and -
-  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Don't worry.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scott, do you want 
to start?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Hello, gang.  Okay.  
Good morning. 
         You're not being tourists.  So, 
Steve already mentioned these are the two 
drafts, the name of the drafts was to split 
the RFC 2026 section ten into two parts.  
One is copyright and trademark related and 
the other is patent related. 
         This is design team output, 
meaning there's nothing sacred about it.  
If somebody wants to put in a competing 
document, clarifying that, in some section 
of 2026, they should do so.  They could 
also make comments on this one.  Which is 
about what we're going to do right about 
now. 
         It is primarily to clarify, to 
fold in the note well stuff, that we've 
been using for the last few years.  And to 
clarify some of the things relative to 
current legal usage.  There's a little bit 
of that. 
         Steve, can you, okay, the way 
we're going to work this is, I'm going to 
give you you some overall stuff, but Steve 
will put up the individual, Internet draft 
as I go through each session section.  And 
I'll say where it came from out of 2026 and 
what changes, if any, need to be, and then 
we can talk about them as we go along.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Which one do you 
want first?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Drafts.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  So, basically, the 
first document is the submission rights 
document.  It contains the basic rule set 
of submitting to the IETF.  Such as no 
secret material, and you agree that you 
actually have the right to do this and 
little things like that. 
         It includes the rights to make use 
of IETF's rights to make use of contributed 
materials, by using it in standards 
process, publishing it.  Copyrights 
documents in the IETF documents.  The 
rights to make derivative works and the 
limits on those rights. 
         And the new thing added is rights 
of trademarks.  We did not have that in the 
2026, because at the time we did 2026, we 
sort of thought that trademarks was just 
another right and it was part of the thing.  
But since then, we've had issues with 
trademark, so we are adding specific text 
on that. 
         So, there's a lot of wording 
changes and a bunch of reordering.  So, I 
will call those out as we go along.  Do you 
want to put up the next one? 
         I will make my slides of, I'll 
send my slides to Steve, which have the 
section by section heading of saying where 
things came from so you don't have to 
memorize that as we go along. 
         The section 2 point one.  The 
abstract and the introduction are just 
that, abstracts and introduction a as to 
what's going on.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Can you make that a 
bigger font or something?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Somebody didn't 
bring their bifocals and wants a bigger 
font.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'm worried about 
the people in the back.  I can actually 
read it.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The people in if 
back, can you read it.  If you you can't, 
there's seats up front.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Good answer.   
         ( A lot of people are joking about 
that. )
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is huge.  All 
right.   
         ( Laughter. )
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  Let's try large. 
         How many geeks does it take to 
change the font? 
         All right.  I think we're going to 
say, the attempt has been made, to increase 
the font size and this is what we've got.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  How many people have 
laptops here, it's in the address 
directory, folks.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Wireless still works 
for another few hours.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  So section 
two point one is from 2026 section ten 
point one and it's really just the overall 
statement.  Two point two is from section 
2026, section ten point two, with no 
significant changes.  Now, I say no 
significant changes, in my scanning it in 
the last couple of days to make up these 
slides, when Steve told me I was actually 
supposed to stand up and do something, 
rather than shrink into the woodwork, I 
didn't see any substantive changes.  But I 
do not believe there are.  I will tell you 
where I think they are. 
         Section two point three is from 
2026, section ten point three and the title 
has changed, adding the granting of to the 
title.  Because it just said before, it 
just said rights and permissions. 
         Section 2 point three A, is from 
2026 1031 one, and we moved this, there was 
some section in the 2026 about government 
type work, which is not subject to 
copyright.  That's now, since that was 
really the explanation stuff, that's now 
down in the explanation, section of 
Paragraph 6.  Let's scroll to that.  All 
the way down to section six. 
         This is contributions are not 
subject to copyright.  By the way, if 
somebody has comments, go for the 
microphone and bring up the comment so we 
can talk about it as we go along.  Don't 
wait until the end. 
         So, this is a little bit of an 
expansion from the text that was in 2026 
about things like U.S.  Government 
documents which are not subject to 
copyright, or that people have put stuff 
into the public domain.  
         Does anybody have any comments on 
that?  Robert?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Big surprise.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Make sure you're 
awake over there.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Actually, I believe 
this is a big improvement of what was there 
before.  While you said that what was there 
before in terms of public domain stuff was 
just the U.S.  Government part.  It wasn't 
really.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  There wasn't really 
anything about public domain.  It was about 
U.S.  Government.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The assumption was 
it was copyrighted and this now is much 
better than what that was, so overall, this 
part I'm reasonably content with.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is Robert else 
higher graph or something.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Back up to section 
two three A.  That's straight from the 2026 
text section 1031, without any changes, but 
I think there might be some minor wording 
changes. 
         The section the two point three A 
B, is from 2026 1031 one, where we added 
the stuff that we've been using of late, 
the last few years, the stuff that we 
talked about at one of the IETF plenary 
meetings, about the ability to say, you can 
submit, the ability to submit an internet 
draft with a notice on it that it's for, it 
cannot, IETF does not have the right to 
make derivative works.  That was never 
called out in 2026.  It was something we 
did at one of the plenaries.  Any comments 
on that?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Will you discuss 
section two one three A.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Section three point 
three?  We can.  I don't have it on my 
chart, so why don't you just keep.  Or do 
it now?  Three point three.  I think, for 
you, those Mikes are ready.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Right back there. 
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  There's no three 
point three.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Oh, right.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Three point two.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The reason I 
mentioned that you may want to discuss 
section point three, which you have not 
written there, is it is has been one of the 
major sources of context con contention in 
the last years.  That people use the escape 
clause to the copyright, exemption, saying 
I submit that to the IETF, but I take the 
escape hatch and I'm not going to review 
any property right or whatever.  And the 
part of contention is not that people have 
the right to do that.  It's whether when 
they do that, working group can or cannot 
take that into account.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I tried to put that 
in there.  And I don't have that on my 
slides, but there is some text in there 
about documents on the standards track, and 
they cannot be ones where there's no 
derivative clause.  That's not something --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  So we have to define 
what is a document in this styles track.  
And that's where, that's where the work -- 
you have there, like, can it be a working 
group draft?  Or does it have to be  
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think you're 
right, that we need to.  And as the 
vernacular goes, syntax, I did, this is one 
of the things that is an extension of 2026.  
There is an attempt in here to say that 
working groups should not be working on 
documents that have no derivative rights 
clauses in them.  Because in fact, if they 
say no derivative rights, the working group 
can't change them anyway, so they shouldn't 
be trying to change them.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think we should 
be, the problem is that the current writing 
obliges working group to make a decision 
each time there's a document like that.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is the specific
text.  If you have, I think the derivation 
s of that would be fine.  It was attempted 
to do what you're asking to do.  Finance it 
failed, it failed and let me know.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scott, the reason --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  We probably should 
state names for the record keepers.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Thank you.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That was Christian.  
I'm Robert else.  The problem and the 
reason why, the reason why this file is to 
do what Christian wants it to do, which I'm 
not sure I want that.  Is that you don't 
have the document until it's an RFC.  
Internet drafts are not documents.  So when 
you talk about Standard track documents, 
the nonstandard type document might seem to 
cover everything else, but when it's done 
like this, the wording implies that we're 
talking about the same category of 
documents.  But we have other RFC's that 
are nonstandard track documents so we need 
standard track and nonstandard track RFC's.  
The first time it occurs in that second 
line, clearly it means it's standard.  And 
therefore, the second instance of documents 
means RFC as well.  The way one reads that.  
It's the second line. 
         So, if you want to actually cover 
internet drafts, you have to explicitly say 
internet drafts.  I'm not sure we want to, 
but I think that would definitely be a 
change in policy, rather than 
clarification.  But that's, you know, I 
think it's up to the working groups to 
decide what they want to do in this case, 
rather than being told what they're allowed 
to do.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's actually a 
fundamental question and it's an important 
one.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Absolutely.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That this was not 
discussed during the plenary discussions on 
adding the ability to send in an internet 
draft where it says there is no right to 
build, to make derivative works, because at 
the time we did that, the assumption was, 
and the reason to include that escape 
clause, was for the cases which are listed 
here, re publications of standards 
documents from other organizations, or pry 
pry proprietary documents from corporations 
and we don't have the rights to change 
those.  We did not consider the case that 
somebody would put something into a working 
group, with assumption that it was going to 
be published by the working group as a 
standards track information or any other 
kind of document and put such a clause on 
there. 
         Most area directors have been 
telling me that working groups, working 
groups should not be working on any 
document that prohibits change, i.E., No 
derivative works.  But it's not written 
there.  If people believe that working 
groups should be able to work on documents 
that they can't change, then they should 
make state so.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  It probably would 
help to have some explicit guidance here.  
That's my personal opinion.  But I know at 
least one group had a major fight on 
exactly this issue.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Simple.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  You want to talk on 
this topic?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Why don't you talk.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Bill 
Summerfeld, simple group working group 
chair.  What would be helpful to me, is 
some text somewhere saying that a working 
group or chair can decide not to accept a 
document, which doesn't have the, allows 
derivative works wording.  Because I've 
gone through a couple of those slightly 
touchy negotiations with documents submit 
terse about this.  And it would be helpful 
to say, no, no, here it says, I'm fully 
within my rights to insist on derivative 
works.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Now, just a new 
answer a little bit.  There's a difference 
between that a working group husband not 
work on anything, that they cannot modify, 
I do derivative works on.  And do what you 
suggested which was give the authority to 
the working group chair to denied decide 
not to do that  
         NEW SPEAKER:   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Right.  Because 
someone who just reads what's written on 
the web site  
         NEW SPEAKER:  No, no.  You're 
missing the point.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Sorry.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  You you asked are 
does the chair have the discretion to 
accept or not accept, and the alternative, 
well, two alternatives, one is to say the 
chair doesn't have that discussion.  And 
the other is to say, the chair doesn't have 
that discretion because no working group 
can work on this  
         NEW SPEAKER:   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I don't care which 
we go with.  You know, I can live with 
either one.  I'd actually prefer the no 
working group works on there's no 
derivative works on.  But I don't see as 
strong a need for that.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  John.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  John Clen son.  
Scott, it seems to me, there's at least one 
and possibly two important cases which 
we've hit in the past.  That this doesn't 
cover. 
         Let me try to explain the more 
extreme one.  Somebody comes in with an 
individual contribution which is proposed 
foregoing onto standards track.  What they 
say to us is, you don't get any rights to 
derivative works unless you standardize 
this and release it when it's published as 
an RFC.  We've had that problem in the 
past.  This doesn't address it.  And it 
seems to me that we need to be very, very 
explicit about that case, one way or the 
other.  And not only does this not address 
it, but the question, materials getting 
into the bit over working groups who we 
discussed in the last 5 minutes, doesn't 
address it either.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Would you make a 
suggestion on what we should say?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'm happy to make 
two contradict tree suggestions about what 
we might say.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Make a suggestion 
and we can talk about it.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I don't know what 
the community wants to do.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Make a suggestion 
and we can talk about it.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  One suggestions is 
that anything that is expected or hopes to 
go into standardization has to be released 
to the community the moment somebody makes 
that proposals.  The other suggestions is 
that it doesn't get released to the 
community unless somebody like area 
director expresses at least minimal 
interest.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The nuance in the 
first one.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  For example, they 
talk about the applicability of the 
technology.  What you just suggested will 
not cover those.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's correct.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  My person bias to 
you is that working groups shouldn't work 
on documents they can't change.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Again, the most 
extreme case I'm worried about is something 
which doesn't go to a working group.  It 
goes directly to the I S G.  Now, 
interestingly enough, the I S G, under what 
I think you're proposing, the I S G can 
change the rules, simply by either taking 
the document and handing it to the working 
group for evaluation or taking it to last 
call, which operations and under two 
different sets of rules.  It seems to me 
that's not wise.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  David black.  IP 
storage co-chair.  I think the crucial 
opportunity in the working group process, 
is the point which you allow an individual 
submission or a submission to become a 
working group dash zero zero draft.  So 
either here or in the guidance document, 
spelling out that it's the work group 
chair's responsibilities to enforce 
whatever ones of Bill's two alternatives is 
appropriate.  At the point where the 
working group chair is asked to approve the 
dash zero zero of the document working 
group draft would be useful guidance.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Thank you.  I think 
you were in line first.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Dan somebody.  I'm 
chairing the internet something working 
group and also kind of communication on 
project between IETF and I T G.  I would 
like to understand how the following 
situation is covered.  Where sometimes 
required, actually asked by I E E E to take 
some of their documents, for instance, MIB 
s and provide advise, for the quality.  And 
point of view, I still actually would like 
to keep a change controller on these 
documents.  And I'm not sure that the text 
is right now reflects this situation.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, the Texas it 
is right now actually does cover that, some 
of the suggestions we've just had doesn't.  
This particularly calls out the re 
publication of works in other standards 
organizations  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, is this some 
of the comments we have been made here, 
doesn't reflect that.  Because this is a 
case where working group should work on a 
piece of, on an internet draft, actually, 
without changing, not directly.  Where the 
change comes from this document U  
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think that's a 
good point.  One more comment from Dave.  
Personally  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Personally, I don't 
believe and then we should take it to the 
mailing list, because if we take this much 
time on this, this particular point, we 
won't have any time for patents.  But maybe 
that's a good idea.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is a patent 
thing.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Dave, somebody, I'm 
co-caring the IETF working groups.  The 
fact, the requirement that the rights be 
handed over to the IETF, in their entirety, 
and the statement of what that means, I 
think is probably pretty straightforward at 
the conceptual level.  I'm sure it's hard 
at the legal level.  But I don't think 
anybody in the community says it has to be 
handed over.  The question came up about 
when.  And I think we need to be careful 
about what we expect and demand. 
         The handing, I mean, if in fact 
the property is worth having, and somebody 
thinks it is, the people who have it, and 
presumably, we do.  Otherwise we wouldn't 
want to work on it, then they just don't 
want to toss it away.  Handing it over to 
us before we're committed to it is unfair 
to them.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Handing it over too 
late for us, is unfair to us; and so, my 
real point is, there's a negotiation about 
the handing over, and we need to respect 
that fact and deal with it in the way that 
people normally deal with negotiations. 
         It's not a hostile exchange, and 
therefore, the negotiation doesn't need to 
be adversarial.  That means it's okay for 
us to think about the guys on the other 
side and think about what their needs are.  
In an adversarial negotiation, we might not 
want to do that.  But I think we want to be 
careful what we demand from the other side 
so it's knots overly rigid.  An example, if 
they hand control over to us and we drop 
it, then that property is lost.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  No.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  No and I don't think 
that's fair.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  No, there's nothing 
that says, that if they put an internet 
draft in, as a matter of fact, everything 
says the opposite, they maintain full 
rights to do anything they want with that, 
outside of the IETF, or anything they want 
to do.  The question is what the IETF does 
with that document.  It's not lost.  The 
author still retains that right, and that's 
covered in other text here.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scott, I think --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  I wasn't trying to 
be  
         (Several people talking.)  
         NEW SPEAKER:  If we want to be  
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is, this is 
says the IETF lawyer from somewhere is 
working with us for a number of years.  I 
did say we're going to cut off after Dave, 
because I want to move onto other topics, 
but let's let George talk.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes, thanks.  George 
Contreras, and this is just to clarify on 
what Dave and John said before.  The rights 
at the IETF needs have to get granted like 
immediately, when an idea is submitted to a 
list, because when you have the list, the 
IETF publishes the documents publicly, and 
so you need the rights right then. 
         You know, it's not a matter of it 
becoming a standard or advancing along the 
standards track, but for the IETF to do its 
work, it just has to have the rights right 
away.  That's all we're trying to do with 
rights being granted to IETF.  They're not 
exclusive rights and it doesn't include 
anybody else dealing with the materials, 
but just gives IETF and the IETF people 
what they need right from the start to do 
the work.  That's all.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We're going to 
return to the question of 2026 
clarifications later in the session.  We 
want to make sure we have time to get to at 
least the possible change in the IPR 
policy.  So appreciate holding off until 
then on this topic.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  On another topic.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Go on.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  You have to say who 
you are and be terse.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'm Rowen may and I 
wanted to ask for the motivation, on 
paragraph D and the defamatory remarks.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We have not gotten 
there yet.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  It looked like you 
were.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We followed afford 
reference, now we're going back.  Section 
two point three A. 
         This is new.  Yes, two point three 
A, the text right there is new just, it's -
- no, it's not new. 
         No, two point three C, that's the 
new stuff.  I can't even read my own 
slides.  That's new for the clarification 
on trademarks. 
         Any comments on that?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'm not sure --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  You need to  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Steve Tro bridge.  I 
don't worry about it quite as much on 
trademarks but we may have a similar issue 
when we get to patents.  This section says 
that when these are included in a 
submission, that the rights were given to 
the IETF.  But that's sort of assumption 
something that's not written there, that 
the contributor has, can give those rights.  
Owns those rights to award to the IETF. 
         And doesn't really preclude that 
some third party, including somebody else's 
trademark or service mark, and provides 
rights in that way.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  George may answer 
this also, but there is text about, that 
the contributor has to have the rights to 
do what's listed here.  But the case where 
a third party is putting in an idea 
describing somebody else's IPR and puts 
down that the term is trademark, that is 
not explicitly covered. 
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  So on the trademark.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Eric.  George.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Lawyers get 
priority.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  George is the lawyer 
here.  Any other lawyers who want to claim 
to be lawyers.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes, I George 
Contreras, you know, on patents and 
trademarks owned by third parties, I think 
we'll get to all of that in the next 
document.  But you know, the grant here is 
just, we're just really talking about the 
grant to the IETF from the contributor.  So 
if the contributor doesn't have the right, 
the necessary rights to grant to the 
trademarks, well, then, you know, there's 
really not that much you can do.  But 
that's really all this is talking about.  
If there's some third party who is out 
there who has trademarks in words that are 
used in the IETF documents, they can, 
they're not part of the IETF process, they 
can show up and, you know, and they can 
tell you stop.  Possibly.  But this is 
really just asking for what the contributor 
has.  And he should just give you 
everything that, you know, that he can.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Who was George 
responding to?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Steven.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  He did say who he 
was.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  So this doesn't 
explicitly say that it's only the 
trademarks personally and reasonably known 
to the contributor.  I don't know if we 
want to say that or do we want this part to 
be stricter than the department side of 
things?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's a good point.  
I'll put that to the list. 
         Bill Summerfeld, secure something 
working group chair.  This cover use of the 
trademarks by the documents, if I 
understand correctly.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  This covers 
trademarks in the IETF publication of 
documents.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  One thing 
that was problematic, in at least one case 
was, there was some lack of clarity about 
whether or not other implementers could use 
a particular trademark in referring to the 
name of a protocol.  And I think it would 
be helpful to avoid conflicts in the 
future, to request a statement of yes, we 
are, no, we aren't going to let other 
people use this name for implementation.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  So, s have a 
protocol the IETF calls foo bar and the 
question is whether, if Joe implements it, 
can he call it foo bar.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Right, because foo 
bar is a trademark of not the IETF, but, 
Joe's bar and grille.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  All right.  George?  
I think that's a good point.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That was an 
excellent point, and it's a discussion that 
we haven't really had integrate length.  
And there's a big difference between the 
IETF being able to use a trademark in the 
IETF standards process, because the IETF 
doesn't make or sell any products, and 
really trademarks cover the right to use a 
name in connection with the sale of a 
product or service.  So in the IETF 
context, there's really not that much to 
complain about. 
         When you implement a standard and 
slap the name foo bar on, a real product 
that's being sold, then the trademark owner 
would, you know, theoretically have a right 
to collect license fees and to stop people 
who weren't paying from using the mark.  
And it's the same discussion that you have 
when you think about patents, trademarks 
are just like patents in that regard. 
         So, you know, it sounds like maybe 
we're proposing having a discussion about -
-  
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think the proposal 
was to have clarifying text which says that 
persons, a submitter has trademark when 
submitting a document with trademark in 
there, has to state what the usage of that 
trademark would be, in the future.  I.E., 
It's only available for use in IETF 
publishing documents, or other implement 
terse can use it to describe their product 
or whatever.  The suggestions was to have a 
requirement for such a disclosure.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think that 
probably goes in the patent document more 
than it does here.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  All right.  One more 
comment on this.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.  Just adding to 
this, not all of us are lawyers.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  You need to say who 
you are.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Min  networks.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Given the size of 
the Internet community.  I don't think we 
are all lawyers to understand what's in 
that clause A.  And the limitation on it.  
I think it's just that, if I understood, 
you right, what it says here is that the 
royalty free aspects and all those only 
apply to IETF itself, like this 
organization.  And not necessarily the 
vendors who are to build to the end 
results, to the RFC's that are --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is just, 
actually, I should have clarified.  This 
document is supposedly only talking about 
copyright.  And trademarks.  It is not 
talking about patents at all.  Patents are 
in a different document.  So this only 
talks about text and reproducing text and 
trademarks and reproducing trademarks.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Have patience we'll 
get to the other documents.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  All right.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Robert else again.  
One brief comment.  On this issue, since it 
was just raced, it's on who gets the rights 
out of this little issue.  Can we have some 
expectation or hope that since the rights 
are only granted to the IETF to reproduce 
documents in this sense, that we can stop 
distributors from distributing every RFC 
under the sun with their products.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  No.  Because that's 
actually one of our longest held {tra} s 
that RFC's, specifically RFCs are available 
for anybody to reproduce.  Particularly in 
their entirety.  Dave was going to talk 
about substring those a little bit later 
on.  But the idea is that these have been 
available.  S R I from the very beginning, 
from the early days of the internet, made 
collections of RFC's and sold them, even 
though you could download them for free.  
And they made some bucks doing that and 
that's fine.  But we're trying to get this 
stuff out.  And we want to cut this 
quickly, so can you be terse?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  David Burkins.  It 
would be helpful if the lawyer could put 
together some boiler plate, so you know, as 
a normal sort of employee working for a big 
organization, that you can say, I'm 
participating in IETF, I want to author 
this thing, I want to be, you know, squeaky 
clean legally, oh I want some signed piece 
of paper that the work organization has 
given the rights to the IETF for this thing 
that I've authored.  And if there's like, 
just some document that you can say, you 
know, I want to give to my company lawyers, 
and so it's all squeaky clean, that 
certainly would be helpful.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, one proposal 
that has been floated is that the internet 
draft submission process be through a web 
page.  Which would interact with the author 
to get an explicit acknowledgement of this, 
and you can point to the corporate legal 
beagles at the web page to see what they're 
committing to.  But that's an 
implementation detail.  But I think the 
general question is an important one and we 
need to go into it at some point.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I hope this is an 
easy question.  The wording says the 
organization he or she represents, if any, 
there's a tradition in the IETF that people 
come representing themselves and not the 
organizations that employ them.  I'm 
wondering exactly what the definition of 
that is.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  s That's --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  One  
         (Several people talking.)  
         NEW SPEAKER:  If I'm submitting 
something, and I did it on Harvard time, 
George?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  You know, that's 
exactly right, a lot of companies, the 
companies I IP policy says anything you 
develop using their computers or while it's 
on their time, is going to be owned by the 
company.  Just getting the rights from the 
contributor is not going to be helpful.  
The company or organization has to grant 
something too  
         NEW SPEAKER:   
         NEW SPEAKER:  If you could just 
change it from represents to sponsors, if 
you could just change it --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Who was before 
David.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  George spoke last.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Before 
George.  David.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Charlie.  No, it 
wasn't Charlie.  Who was talking before 
George?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes, it was Charlie.  
Charlie who forgot to say his name.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'm sorry.  I'm 
Charlie cough Lynn.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Just, every time you 
go to the microphone, say your name.  Pre 
tend you're a member.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  David Burkins.  Just 
a, if it's legally okay, I would suggest 
you say, instead of he or she represents, 
to say the organization that sponsors them.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think we can take 
that to the list.  The specific legal 
nuance there may be case law dependent.  
         NEW SPEAKER:  I would like to move 
on.  We should do these minor things on the 
list.  We are running tight on time here 
and we haven't gotten to the fun part yet.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Let's see.  Two 
point four.  This is from section 1031, 
2026, added best of knowledge, rather than 
assuming omissions. 
         Question before on two point four, 
somebody had?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We'll get there.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  It's a sub section.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Section two point 
four A is from 2026, 1031, subparagraph 
four, B is from subparagraph 5, C is from 
subparagraph 7.  And I think they're all 
effectively the same as they were.  Two 
point four D is new. 
         Somebody had a comment on that.  
That was cut off.  The comment on this  
         NEW SPEAKER:  It was Rowen.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  No derogatory 
remarks, it was cut off earlier.  There you 
are.  You woke up.  Get to the microphone.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Say your name.  So 
that if, you have to be blamed for the 
question. 
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  Rowen may.  What's 
the motivation for paragraph D?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Speak your name 
again.  So he can hear.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Rowen may.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Thank you.  George, 
do you want to answer that?  This is your 
paragraph.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes, I mean, I think 
the actual motivation was that this has 
come up before, and there hasn't been an 
effective way to police this kind of thing.  
It seemed like just good practice that the 
contributor says that they have 
intentionally, this isn't inadvertant, but 
they haven't intentionally posted an idea 
which is just slandering of some other 
company, or you know, something derogatory.  
Or untrue or that it's illegal. 
         And, you know, hopefully, it 
should be, you know, not controversial.  
And this isn't common practice, but there 
wasn't a mechanism in the past under 2026 
to say that that kind of behavior violated 
the IETF rules.  So here it is.  That was 
the motivation.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Rowen.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  You may have to turn 
the microphone off.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Is there some 
liability to IETF or ISUP again as a result 
of that?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's Rowen again.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  George, the question 
was, is there liability to the IETF if we 
don't include this?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  If you you don't 
include it, no, not necessarily, well, I 
guess, there are two stages.  When the 
contributor says something defamatory on 
the IETF list, that's the contributor's 
fault.  But then, if IETF in the process 
will reproduce it, re publish the 
defamatory stuff, or, you know, the illegal 
material, and yes, then, at that stage, if 
the IETF keeps re producing it and doesn't 
have an excuse to stop re producing it, 
then there is some potential liability, if 
you re publish stuff that you know to be 
defamatory or untrue about somebody, or 
that's illegal, yes, there is a risk to the 
IETF.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Chris somebody.  And  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Christian.  I think 
that we would have to think twice before 
deleting this paragraph.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  For accepting this 
paragraph.  I mean, I look at the it in the 
form, and I mean, does it mean that if I 
goof in my math, I'm saying something 
untrue and somehow illegal?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Potentially.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's 
intentionally, include.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes, but it's very 
hard to Gage intentions.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, we do have a 
case out there of internet draft that has 
bad math, which is questionable.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, it's also, 
when you make, the point about which law, 
the law of the country in which the guy is, 
or the law of the country in which you 
publish the document?  I mean, that's 
bizarre.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's actually a 
good point and that's come up in the 
context dark dark George  
         (Several people talking.)  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Could you say that  
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is George.  
That's why there's an intentional 
requirement here.  I mean, I think we all 
agree that the laws are changing and the 
laws are different in lots of different 
countries.  So this is kind of a minimum, 
which is just to say that, the contributor 
doesn't, hasn't intentionally put something 
illegal in here, as a way to prevent people 
from posting, you know, pornography, in if 
form of an I D.  The untrue, you know, on 
the untrue piece, actually, I don't feel 
that strongly about it and we might be able 
to take it out.  Because defamatory pretty 
much covers it.  It has to be untrue to be 
defamatory.  The untrue piece wasn't 
intended to get at technical arguments that 
other people just consider to be wrong. 
         It's really untrue statements 
about another person or another company.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We probably should 
cycle that so Rowen, come back.  But let 
Robert go first.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Robert else again.  
I think George just answered my question in 
that I was coming up to find out, that 
untrue, what's clearly meant there is sort 
of the in the defamation sense, rather than 
untrue in the sense, where I've very often, 
information in the drafts, which I 
absolutely know to be untrue.  The point is 
to refute it.  So you write this down, and 
it's explicitly something which I don't 
believe, and then I go into a paragraph and 
say why this is wrong.  And if the draft is 
worded this way, then I wouldn't be able to 
accept it, because I know it's untrue 
statements.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We certainly want 
wouldn't want to inhibit your ability to do 
that.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Rowen again.  My 
major concern with this is just that, you I 
thought maybe, you know, I'm not a lawyer, 
but you might establish some precedent that 
we have to do work to look at each internet 
draft and each mailing list post, to see if 
this is the case?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That is a good --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  I would certainly 
not want that to happen.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The precedent of 
this, there's quite a bit of precedent on 
this, and it's usually along the line of, 
if we are notified, this is like bullet 
boards, if they're notified that there's a 
child porn picture in mailing list mumble, 
then they've got some obligation to go take 
it out.  If we are notified, that there is 
an Internet draft which has libel against 
somebody else, we are probably, in the 
United States, obligated to take it out, 
whether or not we have this paragraph in 
here, if we are notified of the but it does 
not state that we have a positive 
requirement to go look.  Is that correct, 
George?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is George 
speaking.  In fact, this actually helps the 
IETF, instead of hurts it, because this 
way, the IETF can, if someone does show up 
and say, IETF, you're re publishing these 
defamatory statements about it me, at least 
they can point to the paragraph and say, 
look, we have a representation from a 
contributor, that he wasn't posting 
anything defamatory, but sorry about that, 
and we'll take it down, or we'll do 
whatever we were going to do.  But this 
doesn't impose a requirement on the IETF 
any more than, you know, any of the 
representations about the contribution not 
printing copyrights or being owned by the 
contributor or anything else.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think we're going 
to have to take this one to the list.  
We're just way out of time on this topic.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  2 four E is 
also new, and this is, to accentuate the 
trademark, that tell us us we have to have 
the trademark. 
         The top section here is a new 
explanation to try and clarify what's going 
on here.  Three Dot one, this is from 
section 2026, section ten point 4 C, the 
main change here, is miscellaneous changes, 
there's two main changes.  One is that the 
one line copyright, now reads that portions 
are copyright, rather than the old one, 
which said the whole thing was copyright.  
Which is never really been true.  It's 
portions that are copyright. 
         And the, specifically it calls out 
that the authors retain rights, other than 
as stated below, which basically, below is 
what we've always had, of the ability to 
publish, reproduce and anybody else to 
reproduce. 
         In the bold text at the bottom, 
one additional change has been added, that 
is actually in some RFC's, it was 
negotiated with one of the major 
contributors to the IETF a few years ago. 
         The bold text was all directed at 
a disclaimer of the internet society 
society.  And we've added the text that 
says that the contributor also has the same 
disclaimer.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scott somebody 
again.  The, I know everybody does this and 
puts this paragraph in all kinds of 
agreements, and terms.  But in some 
jurisdictions, as I understand it, if you 
put a paragraph just like this in, then it 
ends up being void, because you're not 
allowed to difficulties claim all 
warranties.  You really have to put, except 
as provided by law, or some such thing into 
the paragraph, in order to make sure that 
some things that are implied by statutes 
and can't be difficulties claimed aren't 
attempted to be difficulties claimed.  
Because if you try and difficulties claim 
others  
         NEW SPEAKER:  If one thing is 
wrong, the whole thing is.  George?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  You know, that's 
definitely true.  I mean, most of those, 
most of those public policies exceptions to 
these disclaimers, relate to consumer 
protection, and you can't difficulties 
claim your rights when somebody gets hurt.  
Our thought is, we're really talking about 
standards here and not the implementations.  
When companies go and implement these in 
products that catch on fire or hurt people, 
then, yes, then they have to be much more 
aware of those kind of things. 
         But because this is global, 
because it's difficult to, you know, keep 
track of the laws of every country, you 
know, we thought that it was okay to have 
the statement, just written like this.  But 
we can discuss it on the list.  There's 
nothing wrong with saying, except as 
prohibited by law.  I mean, sometimes that 
doesn't actually help.  If the laws are, 
you know, strict enough about this.  But, 
you know, again, it's a detail.  There's a 
lot of discussion we can have about that.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  You're the 
last one on this topic.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Herb somebody.  I 
want to go back to a statement that Scott 
made a little while ago, in particular, 
about RFC's which I understand are covered 
by this document as well as internet 
drafts.  That is, authors of RFC's those 
selected subset of the people who have 
contributed to the content of an RFC, since 
RFC's are the big collaborative process in 
the IETF.  Appear to be granted rights that 
other contributors to the RFC are not 
granted.  With regard to the ability to use 
this document, create derivative works and 
do other things.  And I would think that 
this is a problem.  And should be re 
visited.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  It's not intended to 
be the case.  The term contributor is 
further defined in the definition section.  
And it covers, it should cover all the 
people who have participated.  Now, if you 
reviewed and made some suggestions for 
spelling corrections, in an internet draft, 
you're certainly a contributor to that, and 
whether that gives you the right to then 
runoff and make a derivative of that, and 
in some other standards body, that's a 
legitimate question asked and we should 
take it to the list.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Thank you.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  That's all  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Wrong.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Section three Dot 
two.  Yes, this is new.  This is taken over 
from the boiler plate that we've had on the 
submission of the generating of I Ds note 
that's been on the IETF web page for a long 
time.  This is in from there, slightly 
modified, in that form C doesn't allow you 
to say that you're not publishing somebody 
else's IPR, which the current boiler plate 
text allows you you to say.  I don't agree 
with any of the disclosure or any other 
rules, but I'm sending you this anyway.  
And this no longer permits that.  But the 
rest is pretty much what they were in the 
current boiler plate. 
         Okay.  On to the next document.  
Actually let me go back for a second.  
Okay.  The next document,  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Again, it's a design 
team product.  This was much more at the 
last minute than the previous one.  It is 
about patent rights in abbreviation.  It's 
mostly wording tweaks.  There's a few other 
things and I'll get to those as we go 
along. 
         I added this section, which I 
claim to be the basic principles of the 
current patent rules in 2026 are designed 
to implement.  First of all, the IETF as a 
body, and the I S G, by the way, won't say 
that somebody's IPR claim is good or bad, 
valid or invalid.  We have no requirement 
on us to do so. 
         It also, this is what is going on 
now, that a working group can decide to use 
technology that somebody has claimed IPR on 
it, if they decide to do so.  Its left to 
the, specifically left to the discretion of 
the working group to decide what to do 
there.  It is not a blanket rule from up 
high that you can only use IPR free 
materials, or you can only use materials 
which people have granted reciprocal 
licenses or patent pools or anything else.  
It just says the working group has the 
discretion to consider this. 
         And then, C, it says the working, 
in order to do this, the working group has 
to know what the hell is going on.  So it 
enforcees disclosure.  Dave, you're first.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Dave Crock err.  In 
the I T U, the, there's a requirement 
pretty much like this.  And what is 
disclosed is pretty much the kind of 
language here.  Somebody says, we have or 
we know of, I can't remember which, IPR 
that we believe is related to this 
activity.  Period.  That's the total 
disclosure.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Let me ask Dave 
actually, to hold back on that, because 
that is actually in a further thing about 
talking about how disclosures are made and 
what are disclosures and things like that.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  David black.  B is 
little subtle because the working group's 
decision that somebody is warranted is of 
course subject to further review, 
particularly by I S G as part of the 
standards process.  And I guess, I may not 
be for this document but for the guidance 
document mentioned in the charter, the more 
that we can say about guidelines for what 
will or will not be considered warranty 
would be very useful, in particular, the 
IETF seems inform set a a fairly high bar 
for use of security algorithms and 
protocols for which IPR claims lie.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That is correct and 
that's a good point.  Just as sort of a 
meta point here, we have this document does 
not, is not yet clear enough on one aspect.  
It does have to be clarified. 
         We have X conditions.  First 
condition is David writes an internet 
draft, which has IPR on it, in it, that is 
from a patent David holds or his employer 
holds.  That's Case No.  One.  Case No.  
Two is that Christian puts in an internet 
draft and David notices it and believes 
that it, in whatever level of faith, that 
that document has, is covered by IPR that 
David has or his employer has, and a third 
case is, that there's an internet draft 
sitting there and people have been working 
on it maybe it's even in RFC now.  And 
somebody outside the IETF process, and oh, 
in the second case, David and Christian are 
both participating in the IETF and the 
activity. 
         The third case is somebody outside 
the IETF notices this internet draft or RFC 
and says, wait a second, I've got IPR on 
it.  In the first case, it is not 
unreasonable to talk about putting 
requirements on for quite detailed 
disclosure.  That's what Dave was starting 
to talk about.  Form letters of what the 
patent rights you're going to give and 
things like that, that's quite feasible. 
         The second case, where it is me 
claiming that that idea over there has my 
IPR on it, that gets a little trickier.  
And the third case, it's very hard to 
impose any particular constraints on the 
person disclosing that they have IPR in the 
case.  We want to keep track, keep in mind, 
a high order bid here, which is that we 
have had situations in the past, and expect 
to have them in the future, where patent, 
IPR claims are, let's say, enthusiasm about 
what they cover.  And that could be because 
the claimant truly believes this.  And 
wants to inform the working group of this.  
And wants to collect royalties or maybe 
wants to give it away.  Whatever. 
         But another possibility is that 
the claimant is claiming in not necessarily 
good faith.  So that the aim of the claim 
is to disrupt the activity of the working 
group, to either slow down the process, or 
to guide the working group subtlely to use 
a different technology.  Which in the 
background, the claimant has either a 
product out there, or has product in 
future, and well along in development so 
that it's an effort to gain the standards 
process by making a claim. 
         We need to keep that in mind.  
You're next.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  T J somebody.  I 
think you just brought up a lot of good and 
interesting points.  There may be another 
sub case, in Case No.  Three.  That there's 
a draft that has technology, that somebody 
outside or inside the IETF has, and I may 
know about that.  And according to what it 
says under C here, all participants are 
required to disclose any IPR, not 
necessarily IPR that they are somehow 
involved with.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We tried, let's hold 
that for a minute, because we're trying to 
address that later on.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Also I had a 
request about the term IPR, is this a 
patent or copyright or trademark, something 
that's been granted or registered, 
something that's been  filed?  Into the  
         NEW SPEAKER:  The intent of this 
document, compared to the other document, 
this document was intended to only refer to 
patent rights.  But that's also patent 
applications.  Patent applications and 
patent granted, it is not copyright on 
pieces of text.  This does need to be made 
clear, because a number of people have been 
confused.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  As I'm sure you're 
aware, it might be difficult to require to 
people to disclose information about patent 
applications.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The current 2026 
rules, which this attempts to carry over, 
is that if you cannot disclose the 
existence of IPR, either because your 
company says, no, you can't talk about that 
patent or application, or whatever, then 
you must not participate in any discussion 
about the technology. 
         It does not say, and this may be 
subject to review, but the rules we've been 
operating under since 2026 was done, do not 
say that you are required to disclose 
something your employer tells you you 
cannot.  But if you cannot disclose it, 
then you cannot participate in the 
discussion.  You cannot help that 
discussion either go towards or away from 
the technology.  You just can't participate 
at all. 
         Even sit anything the room is 
probably suspect.  You certainly can't 
contribute to the mailing list or get up to 
the microphone.  So that's what the current 
rules are, specifically recognizing that 
not everybody can disclose everything.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'm just not sure 
that a patent application is tantamount to 
IPR, until it's granted.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The meta point here 
is that the working group needs to know 
what's going on, and if the patent 
application is in, it's useful to know 
that.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Steve Tro bridge.  A 
couple of things.  One is a case that I 
think comes up a little bit more commonly, 
and that's the, if I put something in an 
internet draft, I may or may not know if 
the organization I represent has any 
intellectual property that covers it.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's also 
specifically talked about later.  So why 
don't we defer that point, if that's the 
point you're making, until later when we 
talk about that particular topic.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  And then the 
other, just a followup to the point on 
patent applications, if in market, I know 
that my organization has a policy, or 
perhaps my organization is, that I'm always 
willing to license everything I contribute, 
and can I still participate in the process, 
with something where I may hold off on 
disclosing a particular patent 
applications, because of the 
confidentiality requirements of patent in 
various countries.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That is a legitimate 
question.  I think we should take it to the 
list because it's not easy to resolve.  I 
think it's a very good question.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Turning to --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  You've got to say 
who you are.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Oh.  I already know 
who I am.  I'm Al sister something I think.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  People taking the 
notes are not facing the Mike phones.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Why not?  They can 
turnaround.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I want to return to 
an earlier point.  The IETF has a decision 
process.  It's kind of long wind and hard 
to describe in a single sentence.  I think 
we should try to use the language, the IETF 
can can decide, instead of saying a 
particular piece of the IETF position as 
it's involved here.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think it's a very 
good suggestions.  So we'll change working 
group to IETF.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  A couple, Andy 
somebody.  A couple of concerns about 
principle C.  One is the potential for this 
becoming a fishing expedition, somebody 
raising an issue in a working group which 
really is not intended to be germane to the 
working group but to flesh out IPR claims 
for some purpose that doesn't have to do 
with the working group.  That ought to be 
specifically called out as not requiring 
disclosure, or if there's some confusion on 
the part of whether that should require 
disclosure, there be some process for 
saying, no, this really doesn't belong in 
the working group, and no claims need to be 
made against this.  Second is, for those 
that --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Before you get into 
second.  One of the things that's come out 
of the I published this internet draft, is 
a number of people have come in on the when 
you need to disclose things, as you just 
did.  And there have been a number of 
discussions for clarifying text to be added 
to say, under what conditions you actually 
have to disclose, and that sounds like a 
good thing to add.  It will be on the list 
as talking about that point.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The second point for 
anyone that works for a company with large 
IPR holdings, they may have, some of those, 
s that they know about, are pretty broad.  
And the difficulty we have is oftentimes, 
I'll give you an example of one that I'm 
aware of.  Anything that uses a touch tones 
a menu system, it would be almost 
impossible for you me to do work in 
anything that, any working group, that 
works around voice, because it seems like 
that would be by this language, use of a 
particular technology, or --
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think that's part 
of the same question question.  The higher 
order bid is, working groups should know 
about any IPR, that an implementer would 
have to be aware of, in a licensing 
environment.  So if your employer believes 
that somebody implements a SIP phone, that 
doesn't use tones over the wire or uses 
hums or whatever it does, if your IPR 
department believes that somebody who 
implements that is going to have to get a 
license from you, you should tell us about 
it.  That's the concept.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  So if the idea is, 
you know your IPR department is not 
concerned about side cases that, where 
there's, you know, we all know patents have 
been granted that are extremely broad.  And 
if there's a notion that you know that 
there's absolutely no intention to go after 
people, but yet, you have to disclose it, 
sometimes that affects the work of of the 
working group and that's what I'm concerned 
about.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Let's put that on 
the list, because that's a good point and 
others have raced it in e-mail.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scott real somebody.  
Regarding the fishing expedition, I think 
it's a moot point.  But really, you know, 
that decision doesn't matter.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  What matters.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We're cutting off 
the discussion with the people at the Mike 
now.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Is the technology 
adopted by the working group.  If it 
becomes a draft, then it's not a fishing 
expedition anymore.  That's already the 
point you have to start thinking about it. 
         On the other hand, going the other 
way, if somebody puts in a claim and the 
working group decides it's in bad faith, 
well, the working group doesn't get to 
decide that, first of all.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The courts do.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  And secondly, what 
would we do?  You know, there is no 
enforcement.  So I'm not sure that there's 
any need to have anything about that in 
this document at all.  I think the one 
sentence you have in here, that some claims 
are disingenuous are about all you get.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'll take that to 
the list.  I've seen that comment before.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Dave Allen March 
tell.  I'm getting into the scenario.  
About potentially disingenuous.  At least 
in the United States, you have one year 
from disclosure to apply for IPR.  And I 
don't know how you're actually going to 
deal with that scenario, but that's real.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Good thing think 
about.  And you have text discussion?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  It's almost to the 
point where kind of the universal 
disclaimer that reserves the right to 
pursue IPR, probably should be just about 
attached to anything.  And if the thing is 
still around a year later with no actual 
disclosure, then that's released.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scheduled on point.  
We are now at the point where Scott was 
supposed to be finished with the draft that 
he has not yet had a chance to put up on 
the screen.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I have a quick 
comment.  I have a problem with the word 
any in the third to last line up there.  
All parts painting in working groups must 
disclose --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's a 
clarification.  This is the meta concept.  
We get down to the actual text later on.  
Which is where you would want to make sure 
that those words are right.  This is sort 
of like the concept.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  So, later on, 
there will be an opportunity to go into 
this point deeper?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, there's places 
where that, that's sort of the, that's the 
introduction.  And there's a place where 
the rule sets are done.  And that's where 
that's really important, to get that right.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  My name is James 
wood land and my current employer is apple 
computer.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Rather than current 
employer, current employers.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well.  It's a bunch 
of people, not one person.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I know we like to 
think of corporations as actually being 
these articles of people.  But I don't.  So 
I'm a little concerned about it.  Paragraph 
C here, where it says, all participants in 
the working group must disclose existence 
of IPR.  And this isn't just IPR like 
patent rights or patent applications.  I 
filed.  This would be patents or patent am 
cases that my employer potentially have 
filed.  So, the hypothetical situation that 
has me concerned is I'm participate 
anything a working group, and I think I'm 
participating in good faith, because I 
don't know about any of apple computer 
patents.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  There's specific 
text later onto address that.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Perhaps I 
should see that text.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We did cut off the 
discussion on this topic.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  He's trying to find 
the right place in the dock:  It's a little 
harder when the left hand edge is cut off.  
Where the numbers are. 
         We switched to P D F to get as 
large a font as we can.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's clarifying.  
Right?  Okay.  22 one.  This is from 
section 2026, section 1031, added a note 
to, about the inclusion of the I D header 
boiler plate stuff. 
         22 two one A, now, the sub bullet 
one under there is a scope thing.  So 
there's a scope thing that's been added to 
that, a scope of knowledge.  Any issues on 
that?  You're standing up to do something, 
Scott?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, does, 22 one A 
is a lot better than the introduction.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  And in fact, it 
conflicts a little bit.  And I'd like to 
deprecate a lot of what you say.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, make those 
suggestions on the list.  I really really 
want to deal with the body.  But I'm fine, 
but the introduction was added before the 
body and it should have been added after 
the body. 
         22 one A, we did that.  B, that's 
straight from 2026 1031 7, section three A. 
         This, in 2026, one of the biggest 
issues with 2026, has been the confusion 
and actual internal contradiction between 
whether the rules apply to only standards 
track documents or apply to all documents.  
One of the issues about that, we've already 
heard about this morning, a document 
doesn't get standards track until it 
actually gets approved.  And the other is, 
well, you actually have documents that 
start off as informational or experimental, 
which later on, get switched to standards 
track and you don't want to be suffering 
because that happens.  This paragraph has 
removed the limit that it's standards track 
documents. 
         Section three B is from 2026 ten 
32 B.  Section three C is from ten 32 
Section C and it's changed the language, 
from the I S G knows, to the i.E., S G has 
been informed and it may act on its own, 
John.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's John, sore  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Sorry, I don't 
remember my name at all.  In making that 
change to clarify the difference, the 
standards tracks document, you immdediately 
introduce the question, what constitutes an 
IETF document.  And I'm happy to work with 
you off line on text, but our general 
principle has been that informational 
documents going to the RFC editor are not 
IETF documents.  And I wanted to raise that 
here in case anybody wants to argue.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's true.  The 
documents can be can be submitted to the 
working group or I E S G or area director.  
Or through the I E S G if it's for 
informational or experimental.  And John 
raises a good point and we should think 
about it.  Go ahead.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Tom tail or, nor 
tell, I note the phrase there, in the 
middle, use dristributed exercise under the 
rights, with respect to under openly 
specified terms, I'll skip the rest of the 
thing there.  Has that openly specified 
been there all along?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I believe it has.  
I'm not positive.  George can can look that 
up.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  It simply caught my 
eye.  Thank you.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  It has been brought 
up on the list and also private mail.  But 
openly specified is not openly specified.  
So we may need to address that. 
         There was one other thing in this 
paragraph I should have said is that we 
added a note for the working group taking 
into account the IPR taking into account 
for the statement.  That was not in the 
previous version.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Aaron fall being F A 
L K.  What and who is the IETF executive 
director?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  It's, the IETF 
executive director is Steve coy yeah right 
now.  It's a formal role and it's Steve coy 
yeah.  It's also an e-mail address, which 
doesn't happen to be executive director.  
It happens to be IETF secretary.  I don't 
know how that happened, but history on our 
friend.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The informal answer 
is that it's the person who actually gets 
paid to do all the stuff that the 
volunteers don't have to do  
         NEW SPEAKER:   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Section three point 
one and three point two are missing in 
action.  My counting algorithm seems to 
have failed.  Section three point three, 
this is from 2026 section ten three three.  
Change assumption to presume.  And extended 
the invitation for information from, to any 
time, not just during the last call period.  
And it was expanded to cover our Internet 
drafts. 
         Section four A, this is clarified 
I E S G roles to seek out IPR, and just 
make that a little clearer, added a pointer 
to the IPR on line directory that it's been 
suggested that it should be something like, 
like the current location it or something.  
And section four C, added a pointer of the 
on line IPR directory. 
         Now, can you search for 
reasonably?  Okay.  This is the question 
that came up a couple of times and I pushed 
it to later.  Reasonably and personally 
known, you have to disclose things that are 
reasonably and personally known and this is 
the definition of it.  The idea here is 
that you know about it, or you should know 
about it by scope of your job.  Your 
company cannot purposely keep you in the 
dark by keeping you from disclosing.  But 
this specifically does not require that you 
or your company do an exhaustive patent 
search of your companies archives.  That 
was a question by a couple of people, does 
anybody want to address that?  Here we go.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think this  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Name, name.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  My name is James 
wood young and my employers are apple.  I 
think this is the actual section that you 
referenced.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  When I brought this 
topic up last.  And having just reviewed 
it, I'm not sure this completely addresses 
my ongoing concern.  Because I work for an 
organization that famously 
compartmentalizes itself.  And this way we 
do that, it may not be widely understood 
outside the company.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I don't know if it's 
understood within the company.  That's a 
big step.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think that's true.  
I'm relatively new.  So I'm not entirely 
certain I have a good grasp of the 
situation.  So, the it should be reasonable 
that I might know something about a patent 
or a a patent application.  Who is the 
judge of what's reasonable there?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think that's 
actually a very good thing.  The particular 
term, reasonable and personally known, 
comes from case law.  I don't know the case 
law.  When 2026 was originally done, this 
is original wording from 2026 --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Right, my main worry 
is, at some point I'm going to be deposed 
and somebody is going to ask, what did I 
know and when did I know it. 
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, that doesn't 
sound like a career goal.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes, I know.  And  
         NEW SPEAKER:  But George, do you 
want to address where this wording came 
from, and what reasonably is?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes, George 
Contreras.  Yes.  Scott is right.  I mean, 
you can't really put too many rules around 
reasonably.  Because the cases are going to 
differ, you know, every set of facts is 
going to be different. 
         You know, and every company is 
going to be different.  Like you said.  
Personally, I think, is clear what whether 
you actually know about it.  You know, but 
reasonably is there just to make sure the 
companies don't keep people intentionally 
in the dark.  Things that you should know 
about, in the course of your normal duties 
as an engineer or standards developer for 
the particular company that you work for.  
I think is, you know, I think is as clear 
as it's going to get.  And then, when 
you're deposed, the thing you're supposed 
to do is tell the facts, and if this is 
actually some kind of trial, you know, the 
fact find err just gets to decide whether 
or not it was reasonable, based on what all 
the totality of the facts are.  I'm not 
sure that there's going to be, you could go 
on for pages, trying to find what 
reasonable was, and I'm not sure that you 
would ever get to an end point that 
everybody was happy with.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  I suspect 
that part of the my motivation here is 
that, I think that a lot of this is aimed 
at trying to flush out patent claims and 
patent applications as early in the 
standards development process as possible.  
And I think that's a very, very good goal.  
I just suspect that, what my fear is that 
we may need to do something much more 
radical than what this document suggests or 
specifies in order to flush out IPR claims 
early in the process and I don't know when 
the right time is to offer that radical 
proposal I have.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We're over the 
agenda time.  I do believe there's a a lot 
around this.  Notice and failure to provide 
notice and things like that.  They're going 
to take a lot of discussion and in some 
cases, it's the only, the most of the 
suggestions actually involve significant 
changes to 2026.  I was told not to make 
them in this set of drafts.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I actually don't 
know whether I have to propose would be, 
would require a radical change.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, if you can 
propose it in 20 seconds,  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, I think 
basically, what I would propose is that, we 
might benefit from consortium of big 
industrial players, funding the defense and 
claiming of intellectual property that 
belongs to the Internet society.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That comes under the 
heading of change of policy.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, I think it's 
an interesting idea and I think that's not, 
let's not start that here, but it's 
actually very good that you state it 
because that's the kind of thing that I've 
been hearing.  I've been hearing that, 
patent pools, requiring people to license, 
provide free licensing, provide --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scott, Scott.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  It's a lot of 
requirements, but this is a lot of, there's 
a lot of noise down that channel.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, then I'm 
bringing a little more and I'll sit down 
now.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Thank you.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  John tabs, where I 
work is probably irrelevant, the one thing 
I have, where I have worked, I've been very 
intimately understanding dilemmas of trying 
to define what is reasonable and personally 
known.  And probably, some interesting 
cases, I personally have seen, is where the 
patent author himself doesn't even know the 
scope of his own claims, because normally, 
especially in big companies, the patent 
author will submit something and then a 
lawyer will then extend it extensively.  
The patent author doesn't really 
understand.  And I have personally had seen 
lawyers direct the patent author to say he 
cannot make this claim, because he doesn't 
understand patent law well enough to make 
that assertion. 
         So, I think, while the intent here 
is well placed, the reality is, it's very, 
very difficult for any individual to make 
this, to make a definitive conclusion.  And 
I think people are having unrealistic 
expectations that this process will 
actually change the dynamics fundamentally.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Final comment.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Jim wrinkle.  
Actually, three short comments.  
Intersection two, you talk, you use the 
word make a contribution, whereas down 
here, you specifically use the phrase 
submit a document or participating in 
discussions.  I think we need to be 
consistent there.  And in particular, I 
would like to see a very complete 
enumeration or definition of what is 
covered or what is not. 
         The reason for the concern is that 
even if I don't submit an internet draft, 
because of the nature of the way we do 
work, with extensive discussion in e-mail 
lists, I may make very substantive comments 
and suggestions in e-mail that later get 
incorporated by somebody else into another 
internet draft, and --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Time.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The point is well 
taken.  Consistency, apparently wasn't my 
goal in writing this.  It should have been, 
but it was at the last minute.  In this 
other document there is a definite 
contribution,  
         ( Definition of contribution.  And 
that's where this should be discussed. )
         And we do need to move on.  You 
have two more comments, they're short, 
right?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.  I'll drop one 
of them.  But the one that I'm greatly 
concerned about here is the phrase that 
says that if I know about stuff, but am 
constrained from disclosing it, I can't 
participate.  A particular situation that I 
am in is that I was formerly employed by a 
company that has technology that covers 
virtually everything the IETF is concerned 
about, and I know about it, but my exit 
agreement with that company prevented me 
from disclosing it.  Does that mean that I 
am now prohibited from participating in the 
IETF?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I hope not.  All 
right.  That was attempted to be addressed.  
In a previous part.  Which described when 
you need to disclose, which it does say 
something along the line of your, 
basically, the gist of it is, you're going 
to benefit or your employer is going to 
benefit.  If it's your previous employer, 
that wouldn't fit the letter of that 
particular text but let's look at that on 
the line.  Because I did try and address 
that.  I may not have.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  I'm way over 
my time and the chairs are about to yank 
me, but I want to say a couple of things.  
What I was asked to do today was to show 
the differences between 2026 section ten 
and what I've got in here.  I did not, was 
not asked to and we certainly don't have 
time to go into all of the explanation text 
below.  Let's try to clarify all those 
things, which, some of which we've been 
addressing with points made here.  Some are 
not.  There's going to be a lot of 
controversy over those.  That's going to 
have to be done on the mailing list.  We 
don't have time today.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Before you sit down.  
This is K R E.  Could you scroll up to the 
aim of the document.  The last line.  I 
mean, really, the last line.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The whole document.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.  The whole 
document.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Bradner?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  No.  Keep going.  
That's it.  I want to know, what that's all 
about.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'm sorry.  Scott 
has IPR and can't disclose that  
         NEW SPEAKER:   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I sent the draft in 
e-mail, just, to Steve.  And I don't know 
where it said, why it said end of forwarded 
message.  There's no dark cloud though.  
And I'm going to get the hell off stage.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Actually, if you 
look at a number of internet drafts.  It 
has to do with how the secretary posts 
them.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The discussion was 
cut off.  Because I don't have any, I used 
all the time.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We had a couple of 
other presentations.  Dave Perkins is a 
very short thing but it's such a good idea, 
it's a no brain err and I think we can get 
it out of the way very quickly.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Thanks.  Hopefully, 
again, this is a no brain err, so let's go 
to the next slide.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  So, a lot of 
us in the S M P area, we put MIBs into RFC, 
if we want to use MIB in RFC, we grab the 
RFC, extract the parse able content, and 
modify it, if needed.  And then some of us 
like to include that extracted parse able 
content in a package that we send out to 
users. 
         And so that's what we do.  And 
sometimes we have to go and modify this 
parse able content.  And we might have to 
do it because we need to port it to a 
different environment.  There's bugs, 
sometimes, it's getting better.  But 
sometimes we have to fix some bugs, and 
then sometimes, depending on what we want 
to do with it, if we want to subset it, we 
don't need the whole MIB, we just need a 
part of it.  So, in looking at 2026, it's 
not clear to us that we can do this.  It's 
certainly clear that we can extract it and 
use it for our own personal use, but it's 
not clear that we can modify what we've 
done and re distribute it.  So that's 
really what the problem is.  Modifying and 
re distributing. 
         So here's ideally what we'd like 
to see.  That 2026 successor would have in 
it, so that as long as we do these four 
things, which is identify where we got it 
from, include whatever the latest right to 
use and copyright is, and then say whether 
we modified it or not, and then if we did 
modify it, we'd like to have people be good 
citizens and have to send a message back to 
the RFC editor to say that, we did this.  
So that maybe the working group can fix the 
bug or make the parse able content a little 
bit more general so that it can be used in 
multiple environments. 
         So, that's it.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Dave.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scott Bradner.  I'm 
supposed to follow my own rules here.  I 
did include text in, and I think it's the 
first submission document, that is 
attempting to deal with some of these, the 
ability for example, to pull MIBs and use 
them, and the description for MIBs and use 
them where specifically called out.  For 
what it's worth, I'm a little worried about 
the ability to capriciously modify, doing 
something like bug fixes is one thing.  But 
doing something like extensions is another 
things.  So I think this needs more work, 
but let's not do it here.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Just to clear it up, 
this was immediately obvious to me, because 
I used to be in the same business Dave is 
in.  Sometimes MIB compilers generate the 
output we need to annotate the MIB and it's 
not a question of modifying the contents 
for public purposes, just in order to work 
the compiler, you have to add stuff that 
wasn't in the MIB originally.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's not a change.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Right.  Okay.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We had one other 
person who had a presentation.  Max, I 
think.  Max, are you here?  I don't know 
who max is.  So I wouldn't recognize max if 
he walked upright now.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Going once.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Going once.  Going 
twice.  Okay.  I guess we are now at the 
grand free for all.  What do you want to 
change about the IETF's IPR. 
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  Can we just go down 
rows.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Do be warned, we are 
going to cut this off, because we want to 
re focus at the end, we hope, relatively 
non contentious things, on the proposed 
charter.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Choose a Mike.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Sorry.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  David black.  
Hopefully, this will be reasonably non 
contentious.  Steve mentioned earlier the 
existence of sort of blanket disclosures.  
Had an interesting experience in which, in 
the middle of work group operations, a, one 
of the companies that submitted blanket 
disclosure basically backed away from it.  
Now, they were within their rights to do 
so, but I think what we're going to need, 
to get here, and this is probably something 
for the guidance document, is some text to 
spell out exactly what the blanket 
disclosures do and do not cover. 
         Because like I said, while they're 
apparently within their rights to do so, 
this has to do with who proposed something 
in the third party problem, we still had a 
pleasant surprise when the blanket 
disclosure did not cover what some of us 
thought it might cover.  
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  Randy, bush.  I 
asked a question earlier, not here, but, I 
think it's important to think about what 
our goals are.  And I would like to phrase 
a question this way and I don't expect an 
answer at this point.  Completely, but 
maybe make a little progress in poisoning 
people's mind.  If the IETF's goals were to 
further facilitate widespread 
implementation and inter operation, 
especially by making sure that small people 
have the ability to implement, et cetera, 
what would we, how could we minimally and 
reasonably change our process?  Are there 
small reasonable things we can do to our 
process to facilitate this?  So far, the 
answer I've gotten is, to formalize our 
disclosures a little more.  So that the 
disclosure form would say, which kind of 
licensing, chocolate, vanilla, strawberry 
or nuts, are you willing to do, and get 
more, be more specific about what your 
actual patent claim is.  And if anybody can 
help me think further on this, I appreciate 
it. 
         He said his name.  I don't have a 
change to suggest.  I have a change to 
request not get done.  I didn't have a 
chance before, because the discussion was 
sort of cut off, but Harold stood up before 
and suggested that we change from the 
working group makes the decision, to the 
IETF makes a decision.  And Scott sort of 
agreed on some of these issues.  The 
problem with that is that, the IETF as a 
whole, as a decision making process is 
incredibly slow and clumsy.  And attempting 
to get the IETF as a whole to make a 
decision on just about anything, takes 
forever. 
         And if we, if we're discussing 
here, whether a working group should look 
at a document or not, waiting for the IETF 
to go through last call and see whether 
anybody wanting to object, has the IETF 
made a decision, the working groups will 
get nothing done.  I sort of understand the 
point in what was going on there, but it 
shouldn't be exclusively the working group 
who gets the make the decisions and 
somewhere along the line the IETF has to be 
involved, but just changing from the 
working group to the IETF will be the 
absolutely wrong thing to do.  The whole 
IETF hasn't said we can do something.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think what you're 
looking for is to push as much of the 
workload as possible for the day to day 
work decisions down to the working group.  
But the IETF has to clearly be involved in 
the higher decisions.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Comments?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Is this a direct 
response?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  My intent was 
not to stop the working group from 
considering things.  But we have cases 
where somebody has to decide on individual 
submissions.  Someone has to override the 
working group when it turns out that 
there's an IETF consensus that is different 
from the working group consensus.  Somebody 
has to handle appeals and all that.  I 
mean, our general process is that the 
working group decides, and if it's wrong, 
we have methods to deal with that.  That 
was the thing I was trying to capture by 
saying IETF decides.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes, sure.  It's 
just if we make a trivial change to the 
wording, it won't come out like that  
         NEW SPEAKER:   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Can we say something 
like the working group can recommend.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.  It's just as 
long as --  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Let's take it to the 
list.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The wording.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  My co-chair 
suggested that perhaps away to manage this 
is to have the microphone that that be the 
new topic and that be the response Mike.  
Unless there are any violent objection, I 
so declare it.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Bill Summerfeld, 
secure group working group chair.  I'd like 
to encourage the development of, you know, 
basically a set of questions you ask 
somebody submitting a document, for working 
group consideration, you know, do you know 
patents or do you know of patents and so 
forth.  Not having it written down in 2026 
and so forth, is one thing.  But it's easy, 
it's sort of easier from a mechanical 
standpoint if, you know, there's sort of a 
checklist.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  As Scott said, we're 
con contemplating a web based submission 
and this is an implementation issue rather 
than architecture issue.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Anybody need the 
blue sheet?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Was there a followup 
question?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think that's 
actually a followup question from a 
previous point; is it not?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.  I wanted to 
follow up to about three speakers ago, at 
the other microphone.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Identify yourself, 
please.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is Steve Tro 
bridge.  Concerning the issue, I guess I 
object to the characterization of the 
particular issue, because I know, I've been 
informed of what it was about, as backing 
away from a blanket disclosure.  I think we 
need to be clear about what blanket 
disclosures cover.  And in this case, it 
covers the submissions of the organization.  
And I think that many companies, including 
my own, represent that anything that they 
contribute to the process is available 
under rand.  And the question that I think 
we sort are going to try to cover on the 
list was regarding third party submissions.  
And I think we need to be careful about 
saying that any third pair can contribute 
something that requires your IPR, and 
somehow you're obliged to offer free rand 
license for something the third party may 
have contributed as well that requires IPR.  
So that's an important question.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Follow up?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Not follow up.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Are you a followup 
at the back Mike?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  No.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Then you're in the 
wrong line.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Andy.  I'm a W three 
C advisory committee hat on, and I'm going 
to say, if there's anything I've learned 
from watching this similar process, which 
is in its second year, likely to drag onto 
a third, of revision of IPR policy, it's 
that, the successful approaches all seem to 
rely on what I call the two Chinas, or one 
China approach.  And that is, there are, 
there's a complete separation between what 
can be the goals for licensing and the 
goals for the process of bringing a 
standard together.  And the actual end 
result, which may be strongly influenced by 
third parties who were not part of the 
submission.  In which you you, or any of 
the process for that matter.  And what you 
end up with is the danger in, especially 
being too explicit about the policy, is 
that you create an incentive for, or better 
yet, it's better to be a non member than a 
member.  Or a non participant than a 
participant.  Non participants have more 
rights and more ability to disrupt, and 
because of the openness, the very openness 
of the process, would be, actually it's a 
pretty good idea of what claims are out 
there and what things are out there to 
avoid having that patent invalidated. 
         So, there's a great deal of care 
that has to be made in just how specific we 
get.  It's, that's why I call it, you know, 
one China concern or policy.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  It's obviously a 
hard problem.  The question is, is there 
anything we can actually do about it?  The 
openness problem, the classic answer is, 
all the alternative works.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That was William 
Dickson, currently employed by Microsoft.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  My background is IP 
sec arena.  And I'm not clear that 2026 
revisions here proposed or maybe this is a 
change in process that would be needed, but 
my contribution to a requirements 
discussion, would be a particular problem 
to solve.  And I would want to make those 
kind of contributions at least to express 
what the requirement is.  And I would then 
not be clear exactly what my burden would 
be, should I file a patent application for 
a particular solution that solved that in 
the future. 
         So, in a lot of processes, we 
participate in requirements discussions and 
drafts up front and I'd like to participate 
in that discussion, certainly.  People made 
make contributions, but I may also in vent 
some solution to that particular problem.  
But I'm worried if I participate in the 
discussion requirements, that anything I in 
vent perhaps, you know, would fall under 
some of the standing disclosure 
requirements.  So that's one thing, is how 
do we handle people participating in 
requirements discussion who then file a 
patent for that. 
         The second thing is the 
requirement to disclose patents which have 
been filed.  Most of the requirements here 
talk about rights.  And rights don't 
actually happen as far as I understand, 
until the patents are issued.  So as an 
implementer, I'm very concerned about all 
the things that are filed and it would 
certainly be nice, as an implementer to 
know what's been filed, as opposed to when 
they finally do get awarded two or three or 
5 years down the road.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think there's a 
lot of text that talks about claims to 
right.  My understanding is that you can 
claim a right before it's officially 
granted.  But I'm not a lawyer U  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Is there any 
response to the participating requirements 
discussion?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Actually, I have a 
comment on the requirements discussion.  It 
would seem to me that if one has a patent 
in the queue, and then lines up 
requirements such that is the patented 
technology would be more likely to be used 
as a result of that requirement, that would 
seem to be somewhat out of bounds.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes, I agree.  But 
then there's the issue of when do you file?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Chair, I have 
a response to that as well.  It's actually 
as I understand it, a very hard problem, 
because on the one hand, yeah, you're 
hemming your own future options.  At the 
same time you might actually get useful 
ideas in the requirements discussion.  So 
who knows anymore.  It's complicated.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That's a very, very 
difficult piece.  The general piece of 
whether it's a requirements discussion or 
just initial bantering on a mailing list or 
initial development of technology and 
somebody watching that and running around 
and filing patent applications on it.  Is 
extremely difficult and we don't know what 
to do about it.  We have some evidence that 
this has happened in the past.  With IETF 
discussions. 
         And, but it's not clear what the 
IETF can can can do about that per se.  I'm 
not sure that there is anything other than 
burying people  
         NEW SPEAKER:  George.  This is 
just a followup on Scott's follow up.  This 
is George Contreras speaking again.  At the 
end of the day, to file a patent, you 
always do have to end up declaring who the 
inventor is, at least in the U.S..  And you 
know, so there's some limit to someone just 
being able to scope in the background and 
steel rights coming out of a discussion, a 
requirements discussion.  But like Scott 
said, it's a problem we need to recognize. 
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Seeing no 
other follow ups, next topic please.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Liz best Rodriguez, 
co-chair to the ISP working group.  And one 
of the things we have had happen in our 
organization, and I'm not sure the best way 
to try and address this is companies coming 
in, basically, and saying we may or may not 
have technology or patents in this area, 
and so now, how do you judge, we've got 
guidance whether or not a certain 
technolgoy, to but in your draft.  Is 
really something you consider.  Because 
basically, they say, we're not going to 
search our patent portfolio, but we've 
disclosed, and you know, that's it.  And 
the company is perfectly within their legal 
rights of approaching this. 
         George, responding to that, I 
mean, that type of non specific disclosure 
wouldn't be com compliant with the rule, I 
mean, the rule, the way it's worded here 
and how we're proposing it, the disclosure 
be specific, otherwise, every company can 
say, well, we may or may not have patents 
and there wouldn't be any value in 
disclosure at all.  The value is to allow 
the working group to consider the patents 
that are at issue and to think about 
whether or not the technology is important 
enough to be included.  Whether there are 
alternative implementations and without 
that, you lose the value, of that 
disclosure.  And again, that wouldn't meet 
the rule.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Actually, having 
been through these type of disclosures, I 
can say it is very argumentative, what is 
in scope, out of scope, and so you know,  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Sorry.  Who are you?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  John Tavis.  When 
they want may want more specificity from 
the person, but frequently, it's highly 
dependent on how the implementation 
actually works.  I've actually seen patent 
situations where, the fact that it works on 
a wired line network, it is not fringing on 
the patent.  When it works on a wireless 
network, it becomes a patent issue.  So 
determining scope can be very problematic 
and people like to have it very concrete.  
But the only person to actually decide if 
it is in scope or not in scope is the 
implementer of the product.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  We seem to 
have finally generated something with a lot 
of follow ups.  According to the original 
schedule, we're supposed to be done with 
this part of the agenda in two minutes.  
We'll give it more time, because things 
seem to be going okay.  But try to keep it 
short.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'm hearing that 
language is can commonly used in blanket 
disclosures today is not going to be 
appropriate under this proposal.  What I 
would really like to hear is some proposed 
language for instance, one boiler plate 
that might be useful to have, is one that 
says, any and all technology that is 
provided by this firm will be available on 
a royalty free or rand basis.  That can 
help avoid having to make all kind of 
specific disclosures when knowledge, you 
know, in a big company, sometimes this 
becomes so unavoid able, that with every 
other posting we may need to go and make 
another disclosure.  And if the intent of 
the company's participation is to make 
clear the licensing under which any 
contributions might fall, it would be 
really nice to have some kind of safe 
harbor there, otherwise it looks like the 
cost of participation for those that do 
represent IPR holders, becomes 
disproportion alley great than those that 
don't have large portfolios.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Identify yourself, 
please.  I know you spoke before.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Andy somebody.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  And Scott rim.   
         NEW SPEAKER:   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I overlap with 
Randy.  It's very hard to do specific 
disclosure.  The disclose err himself 
doesn't know lot of times.  Changes occur 
all the time. 
         The goal of all of this is for the 
working group to be able to make decisions 
and licensing disclosure is much more 
important than specific claim disclosure.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is Steve, 
again, I'm the specificity of the 
disclosures, we have to make it possible to 
have a way to participate without having to 
do a patent search or a search of patent 
applications on every issue that comes up.  
And I think some of the blanket 
declarations that indicate willingness to 
license under rand anything that the 
participant contributes ought to be able to 
cover those cases, without the need to do 
anything, a patent search.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Just as a point of 
clarification, there is a distinction 
between what you're required to do and what 
is a courtesy to do.  So that there's the 
look, I don't know exactly what our claims 
are in this area and I'm going off and 
looking at one working group and I want 
them to know I'm going off to look at it.  
And it's an informal statement.  That's a 
different issue.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  This is, I 
guess a followup  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Name please.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Liz best Rodriguez.  
And essentially George mentioned here that 
the case that I described earlier, where 
someone basically Sid it may or may not 
apply, doesn't satisfy the requirements.  
The criteria.  So is that something that's 
new, or is that something that's already 
been there, and what recourse does the IETF 
have in such a case?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  George, can you 
answer that?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'm next in line 
anyway.  Yes.  I mean, of course, you've 
got the rule in place, and yes, I mean, I 
think it appears that way at the moment.  
And you have these rules and everybody 
wants to comply, just to be good citizens.  
But one thing to bear in mind, the only 
time the rule is actually tested out.  the 
only time there's a real harmful 
consequence to somebody not complying is 
when they come back and try to enforce the 
IP rights after a knot having complied with 
the rule. 
         So if you ask for the disclosures 
to be as specific as possible, and you 
know, someone has just made a blanket 
disclosure and hasn't disclosed the 
specific patent and then they come and try 
to enforce those specific patents against 
an implementer, under the rule, that's when 
they may run into trouble, not having 
complied with the rule.  And then you run 
into cases, actual cases that have been 
brought, where companies have not been 
allowed to enforce their patents.  They 
become valueless because they participate 
in the standards process and did not comply 
with the standards organization rules about 
disclosures on the patents.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Essentially, 
this is Elizabeth Rodriguez again.  And 
essentially, this is a case where this 
particular scenario is actually bridging 
two different standards organizations.  The 
first is IETF and the second is ANSI 
organization.  And essentially, the ruling 
from the ANSI organization was that this 
was perfectly legitimate, and we can cannot 
require any kind of patent search.  You 
know, there were two patents in this 
particular case that were specifically 
mentioned, that may or may not apply to a 
certain scenario. 
         And you know, it became very 
thorny in trying to figure out how to 
capture that into whether or not this 
technology should be used.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Just to, on the 
patent search point, this is George 
speaking again.  You know, again, the rule, 
the way Scott has formulated it, relates to 
the contributor's reasonable and personal 
knowledge, and again, I just want to 
reiterate, no one has asked the patent 
search be made, but I think that is this is 
with the ANSI position, you don't have to 
make a patent search.  It's just something 
if it's within the contributor's job 
description or they know about it 
personally, that's where disclosure is, and 
that's the violation, not to disclose it.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Unless 
there's strong objections, I'm going to 
close the Mike after the guy in the green 
shirt who wants to speak.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  John Tavis.  You 
made one important very big leap of faith, 
which I think is actually flawed, in its 
assumption, that an individual making a 
discussion or contribution that may violate 
the intellectual property rules of the IETF 
puts his company at risk.  And how much 
risk does it actually put his company to 
enforce later.  Since corporations do not 
participate in a formal fashion in the 
IETF.  I don't think that linkage is as 
strong as you were implying. 
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  Respond to that?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.  Quickly.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'll respond 
quickly.  What can can I say.  People do 
work for companies.  And companies are the 
ones that enforce the intellectual property 
rights that they own.  There have been 
cases where companies have not been allowed 
to enforce their rights, and the F T C in 
the U.S.  Anyway, has, you know, made it 
very clear that if you're part of a 
standards process, and this may be 
different, because different standards 
organizations you actually represent your 
company.  And you sign on behalf of your 
company.  Some standards organization 
actually have a form that you sign to 
participate, to become a member.  And that 
binds your company.  That is not the way it 
is in the IETF.  And all I can say is that, 
the IETF is different type organization.  
It's somewhat unique in the standards world 
in that way.  And who knows how it will 
actually play out.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Last counter counter 
counter rebuttal.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Only because I think 
this is important.  Case law that you're 
referring to, I believe, was, had companies 
actually sign agreements going into it.  
There is no, so, so this is the Dell case, 
which is the one that is commonly cited.  
Dell actually was a member of the group 
that was in place here.  There has not 
been, to my knowledge, case law of 
individuals being tied back to the F T C.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Thank you.  
Next question.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  How do you view the 
illegal and defamatory paragraph 
interacting with disclosure of crypto 
graphic technologies and discussion of 
security flaws which in some jurisdictions 
has been talked about being out lawd?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I will note that 
it's, it refers to the jurisdiction of the 
person making the disclosure.  It's up to 
you.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  By the way, 
Randy Pra soon something working group 
chair.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  George responding to 
that.  Because I had aside bar about that 
very same point.  I think, you know, when 
you talk about the illegal conduct, there 
are two things.  Obviously, porn and stuff 
that everybody accepts as illegal.  And 
then there's the digital property right act 
and this is probably where we're going with 
the question.  I think we did discuss this 
at length.  When coming up with the 
paragraph.  And, I think the bottom line is 
that there may be laws out there that 
people don't generally view as good laws, 
laws that may actually not last that long 
and may be overturned by Congress or other 
courts.  From the IETF standpoint, to 
protect the IETF, they are still laws.  If 
the Department of Justice came to the IETF 
and said, working group X Y Z is working on 
security report files and they're 
publishing anti circumvention technology 
code that's designed to get around 
particular, you know, copy protection 
mechanisms, that's illegal.  IETF you have 
to take it down.  Then the IETF would be 
compelled to take it down.  And the 
statement in submissions document is where 
the IETF can say, okay, we'll take it down.  
But at least look, we're trying to be good 
citizens.  We did ask the contributors to 
tell us if there wasn't anything illegal in 
what they did. 
         And we relied on that.  Even 
though, you know, we may not be in 
compliance with that law.  The IETF can't 
be in the position of deciding what's a 
good law or bad law.  Just asking that we 
comply with the law.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Next question.  
Warning, unless people strongly object.  
We're going to cut this off in about 5 more 
minutes, so we can finish up in the last 
fifteen minutes getting back to what we 
doing.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is co-chair of 
the something and compression group.  Max 
doesn't seem to be here today.  I think 
there was some confusion about whether he 
had time on the agenda or not.  But since, 
I think his draft sprung up from things we 
did in rock working group, maybe, I can try 
to at least represent his main point. 
         And I think the main point is that 
sometimes, we are standardizing technology 
where there's a technical requirement that 
the technology be unencumbereencumberd, 
because we intend to roll out the 
technology throughout the Internet.  And we 
all know that it is very hard to generate 
documents where we know, or where we have a 
reasonable certainty that the technology in 
there is unencumbereencumberd.  But still, 
I think it would be useful to actually 
start work, on process that is specifically 
aimed at this objective.  I'm not saying we 
should start today.  I'm just saying, we 
really should see this at one additional 
work item, in the IPR process.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Randy bush.  The 
previous speaker was talking about taking 
down stuff because somebody allegings a D M 
C A violation.  I would suggest, I'm not a 
lawyer, and I do not play one on the net.  
But I would suggest that we not be judgees 
and juries.  And not remove content because 
somebody allegings something, but only act 
under legal advice when we actually are 
faced with a court order in the appropriate 
jurisdiction where the violations occur.  
That one seems to have pulled Scott's 
chain.  Go for a Mike, Scott.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, there's a 
queue in back of me at this point, Randy.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Talk to the lawyer.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Please, 
anybody up there to agree with what Randy 
just said, say that  
         NEW SPEAKER:   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I was going to go 
onto cars scene's cars son's comment on 
making the technology unencumber.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Identify yourself 
again please.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  David black.  
Something that might be useful as a step in 
that direction, is that when claims arise 
that something else owned by somebody is 
involved in a standard, right now, there 
is, just so one is on one's own in terms of 
whether the working group does anything in 
terms of trying to unscramble what's going 
on with the claim.  Some thought to a 
processor guidance, working group chairs or 
the I E S G when the sort of third party 
claims arise, what is reasonable to do and 
what may or may not have worked in the 
past, might help.  As opposed to the 
current situation where this claim pops up 
and you're flying blind trying to figure 
out how to try to get some more knowledge 
and facts about what is or is not going on 
here.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think part of what 
you're looking at there is that the IETF 
operates by the equivalent of case laws as 
that goes.  That maybe sets a precedent.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Yes.  In essence, 
the guidance document, it's the third item 
on the charter, would be a good place to 
record this equivalence of case law.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  This is K R E again.  
I think I agree with Randy.  But I wanted 
to point out that, there's no way that, it 
doesn't make sense to require any kind of 
technology, for anything that we do here, 
regardless, that it's not, I'll make a 
caveat in a second.  Regardless of how wide 
it's going to be deployed or how much 
through the internet we expect some 
technology to be deployed.  That doesn't 
mean we wouldn't prefer it, but requiring 
it is silly.  We can see a lot of people 
here who are using encumberd technology, 
including things like ether net.  The 
question is what we've always done in the 
IETF when we're looking at this sort of 
technology, can we reasonably distribute 
it?  Then licensed it by paying a 5 cent 
license, or whatever.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We're close to out 
of time, so this will be the last question 
and then any follow ups and then we're done 
with this.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  That was a good lead 
in to my comment.  My name is Steve Hanna 
and my comment is that, all of these 
documents with respect to licensing terms 
refer to reasonable and non discriminatory.  
Reasonable and non discriminatory doesn't 
really mean very much.  What's reasonable 
to one person is unreasonable to another.  
And certainly if you're doing an open 
source implementation, then requiring that 
every user pay per byte or whatever, it is 
not reasonable for you.  So I think that, 
there should be some guidance to working 
groups, and I'd like to see some guidance 
to working groups, pointing out that 
reasonable and non discriminatory is not a 
panacea, and that in some circumstances, 
maybe most circumstances, we should reach 
for a higher threshold and preferably 
royalty free. 
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  Follow up?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scott?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scott Bradner.  You 
mixed two things there.  One is the 
suggestions that the documents explicitly 
say that the working group should prefer 
technologies with no known IPR constraint.  
We of course can't know whether there are 
any.  We can just say we don't know any. 
         And that was discussed when 2026 
was proposed, when in fact I proposed that 
particular text.  And at the time, the, of 
course, the working group which was working 
on it, did not support my proposal.  It was 
certainly something we can redress.  the re 
add address. 
         The question of fair and non 
discriminatory, we talked about this a 
great deal when we did 2026.  And it was 
fixed, finally, a suggestion of Christian 
and an IBM lawyer, who suggested that we 
use a standards process.  So if you look in 
this, it talks about advancing documents 
along the standards track as our actual 
running code test to see whether something 
is fair and non discriminatory. 
         Getting the standards body in the 
business of saying one sentence, in one 
sense a copy is fair, and in two senses it 
isn't.  It turns out to be very, very 
difficult and it means a lot of subjective 
value judgments and it's something that we 
decided not to go to last time and I think 
we should think really careful about it 
this time.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  The people in the 
queue are fine but I'm closing the Mike 
after.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scott, I was going 
to ask you.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Who are you?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  William Dickson, 
again.  In the past discussion, are you 
saying that you don't want to have even a 
recommendation for the licensing terms, 
licensing statement for technology?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Clarify, I put in a 
suggestion when 2026 was being created, 
that the working group you should be, 
should be urged to prefer technology with 
no known IPR constraints.  And the working 
group at the time decided to not do that, 
but to leave it to the discretion of the 
working group.  The text in this particular 
set of documents says that it's to be 
assumed the working groups will normally 
prefer technology with no known IPR 
constraints but it doesn't tell them to do 
so.  I certainly wouldn't be opposed to 
telling them to do so, because I proposed 
it once before.  But that's a discussion we 
should have on the mailing list, as to 
whether we should do so.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Then at least I 
would be in favor of a recommendation on 
the type of constraint, full specification 
of a constraint, foreman tree to implement 
technology.  I've seen the case, if you 
look back overall the IPR statements that 
are out there, under the IPR section of the 
IETF site, there are all kinds of terms.  
And at least for something which is 
mandatory to implement, it would be nice to 
have a recommendation for, from the IETF in 
general, and the kind of terms for 
mandatory technology.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  The response 
Mike was closed, unless you were already in 
the queue.  Sorry. 
         Okay.  I think at this point, we 
want to come back to discussion of the 
charter and whether or not we want this to 
be a working group, whether or not we agree 
with the work that's currently on the 
proposed charter and finish that up and 
then declare victory and go home. 
         Was that the question?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  First, do we want to 
become a working group.  Let's take a hum.  
All in favor.   
         ( Loud hum. )
         Opposed.   
         (  )
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think we have to 
take it at a higher pitch.  Rather than  
         ( It was hard to tell which one 
was louder. )
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  All right.  How many 
people think that we need to become a 
working group, want is perhaps not the 
right question in this context.  Hum.   
         ( Hum. )
         Okay.  How many people think that 
we do not need a working group on these 
topics?   
         ( That's louder. )
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  It sounds like -- I 
think we need a show of hands.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  How about a little 
discussion first.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  What would you like 
to discuss, Randy?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think.  I couldn't 
hear.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Scott.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  We obviously want 
the work.  That's without question.  These 
two drafts are well along.  You know, Mr. 
Bradner has done great work.  But there is 
a third bullet, which is guidelines context 
and culture change for the working groups.  
Fixes the common knowledge that is no 
longer true.  The question is, do we need a 
working group for that?  I think we can 
just do the work.  So, as, the point is, we 
need the third document.  That's not the 
same as Scott just producing a couple of 
drafts.  And the question is, do we need a 
working group for that alone? 
         Okay.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Andy, in what 
ways would it matter that we formally go 
through the process of being a working 
group, versus continuing the progression of 
these documents, if forming a working group 
slows this down, then I'd be opposed.  On 
the other hand, if we're acting like a 
working group, why not call ourselves a 
working group.  It's really, almost depends 
on what you mean by working group kind of 
question. 
         The other thing that I want to 
strongly support is, not expanding the 
scope too much, but on the other hand, 
recognizing that what's being proposed may 
significantly change the culture of the 
working group, particularly if disclosure 
documents are required at certain stages or 
in order to proceed with their discussion 
or enter a discussion room and if that is 
the topic for the working group, I think 
that would be a good one.  And that might 
be a topic for an independent working group 
that's not necessarily concerned with the 
progression of the two documents.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Randy?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Randy bush.  I 
believe these two documents can get further 
if we're a working group or not.  I believe 
that it will take us a considerable amount 
of time, measured in a year or two, to come 
to a mind about what to do to progress 
forward.  On changing the culture 
significantly.  I think what's needed is a 
mailing list, which we have, and calling it 
a working group and having some sort of 
trappings around it is a non issue.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I'm actually next in 
the queue.  Personal opinion.  That the 
chair hat off.  The main distinction I see 
between working group and not, is whether 
or not we need to have a series of face to 
face meetings, just a logistic matter.  I'm 
not convinced that we actually need face to 
face meetings at every IETF until we get 
the documents done.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Linda shore.  
Actually, another us distinction is that 
working group documents have to go through 
working group last call.  But, and this is 
really a process issue.  Clearly, there are 
tremendous disadvantages to having 
technologists discuss law.   
         ( Applause. )
         But at the same time, I think that 
there's, for something like this, that 
really is fundamental to our culture and 
how we make our technical decisions, 
transparency of process has a lot of 
advantage.  And if there's some way to make 
sure that this is as parts torrey as 
possible parts taste, and to make clear 
what the culture is, because functional 
change, certainly in my working group, mid 
com, one thing we've seen is that, these 
issues, IP R issues, not only affect the 
technical decisions that we make but also 
the conduct of the working group.  People 
behave really really badly when they're 
trying to protect and promote IPR.  It's 
really disruptive.  So if we can do 
something to be more clear or explicit or 
open about the cultural issues, I think 
that's a tremendous advantage.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I don't know what 
his name is.  Speaking as A D of this area, 
and the main difference I see between the 
working group and not a working group is 
that, with the working group, it's well 
defined what it is, and I can point, I can 
tell people where to find information about 
in one sentence. 
         Look at the working group chart. 
         If there is something that's not a 
working group, then I have to spend 
considerable more time saying this is a 
special case, and you have to figure out 
which web page to look at, you have to 
figure out where to look for archives and 
so on.  And for an effort that, I 
definitely don't want to be accused of 
having lacked that.  And I very much like 
to use process we have for being open, 
instead of trying to in vent new process 
for being open. 
         That's my reasoning.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  I think one 
of the  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Identify yourself.   
         NEW SPEAKER:   Ted somebody.  I 
think one of the things that's been 
implicit in a lot of the comments both 
about engineers not being good as lawyers 
and some of the comments about how 
companies relate to this process, is that 
there are in fact two things that these 
drafts do.  One is tell individuals how to 
participate in working groups.  And I think 
we can do that and do that well.  The other 
is, explain how corporations relate to the 
standards which are produced by those 
working groups. 
         And some of the claims that we're 
talking about are actually fundamental to 
the culture of the IETF, as participation 
of any IETF as individuals.  And I think 
some of what's being proposed, actually has 
some subtle changes in how the corporations 
relate to the standards which are produced 
by the IETF. 
         And I'm not sure our traditional 
working group mechanism is going to get the 
participation of the right people too make 
sure that the working group outcome 
satisfies that second group of 
participants.  That does not mean I have a 
text to send to working group chairs about 
what the better process is, but I think 
it's something that we need to keep in mind 
as we go through this process.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I want to take a 
slightly different, on whether or not the 
work outlined in the charter needs to be 
done, with or without a working group.  All 
who think the work needs to be done, please 
hum.   
         ( Loud hum. )
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  Those who do not.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Those who do not are 
not here.  
         ( It was silent. )
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  That one at least is 
clear.  Yes.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  James wood young.  I 
have a brief comment.  I heard a few people 
suggest that since we're technologists and 
engineers, we shouldn't really be be 
discussing law.  And that bothers me.  And 
I wanted to get up and say, no, we're 
engineers, that means we shouldn't be 
practicing law.  Discussing law is a good 
idea and we should not shy away from it.   
         ( Applause. )
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  Let me agree and 
disagree with that.  Yes.  We're not 
lawyers and we shouldn't be practicing law.  
At the same time, a lot of what we have in 
2026 is the result of a lot of arm chair 
lawyering that may have been less than 
perfect value.  Getting some really strong 
legal input from a variety of corporations 
that are looking at this will be really 
helpful.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  No argument.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Andy,  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Just curious, in the 
proposed charter, with the discussion that 
we've been having about the culture change, 
particularly, I think more and more we're 
looking at, a potential for looking at 
participation in the IETF, that's not just 
individual, that's a major culture change.  
Do we want that in the charter and is it 
properly called out?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I take it you guys 
are having an interesting discussion?   
         NEW SPEAKER:  No, we're just 
confused.  Go ahead.  I think.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think we're about 
out of time, so I think this is going to be 
the last item.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Well, it's just a 
response to Andy.  I'm Scott somebody.  
People can can act as individuals and bring 
in individual contributions, and to their 
knowledge, whatever that phrase was, you 
know, are there intellectual property 
issues with what they're bringing in, if 
they say so.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  Okay.  Let me try to 
sum up in the 30 seconds we've got left.  I 
think what we've heard is that, we've got 
pretty good agreement that there's work 
that needs to be done.  We do not have 
currently agreement on whether or not there 
should be a working group.  We do not have 
time to resolve that now.  We're going to 
take it to the list.  Is there anybody here 
who needs us what the working group list or 
BOF list or whatever list it is again?  
Okay.  It's IP R 
         Dash D E L E  
         ( He's saying the list name.   )
         NEW SPEAKER:  Is it possible that 
we have a substantial change in hum  
         NEW SPEAKER:  Let's take one 
parting hum.   
         NEW SPEAKER:  All in favor of the 
creating the working group.   
         ( Hum. )
         Opposed?   
         NEW SPEAKER:   
         ( One person hummed.   )
         NEW SPEAKER:  I think that's 
clearer hum.  I did get one suggestions 
that who is summ humming in the best 
harmony.  We'll proceed formally with the 
working group.  And see you on the mailing 
list and see you in Atlanta, but it won't 
be Friday morning, because we're not 
meeting Friday in Atlanta. 
          
         NEW SPEAKER:  Did you think this 
was a worthwhile meeting? 
         Yes, it does.  I don't know 
either.  But we will find out. 
         Thank you very much, and good to 
see you.