RE: Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-08 and draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-12

["Valerie See \(LCA\)" <vsee@windows.microsoft.com>]

Steven M. Bellovin <mailto:smb@research.att.com> wrote:
> In message
> <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D019E66B2@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windep
> loy.ntdev.microsoft.com>, "Valerie See (LCA)" writes: 
>> 
>>> 6. Section 6.4.3. I think the original language needs to be restored
>>> before the new language Scott added, because I think
>>> we need to make clear that the _other_ terms and conditions in the
>>> blanket RF statement must be RAND.  So the revised sentence would
>>> read "However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is satisfied by
>>> a blanket statement of the IPR holder's willingness to license all
>>> of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of Section 6.6 (and
>>> either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an IETF
>>> specification on a royalty-free basis and under other reasonable
>>> and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, so long as any such
>>> other terms and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure
>>> statement." I recall Jorge stating that was the original intent of
>>> this language, but I think it's critically important to make it
>>> clear here. (I have to state privately that the addition of the new
>>> requirement in this sentence to disclose the specific RAND terms
>>> feels like a "change" in policy to me, and I am concerned about
>>> that as it seems to go beyond a clarification, but if it's going to
>>> stay, I do think the above edit is a must have.....)
>> 
>> [vsee] Again, I am sorry to ask about this one, but I think this
>> particular issue really _is_ critically important. The reason I
>> say=20 this is that the omission of the language about RAND leaves
>> the door open for blanket statements that are _only_ royalty free,
>> and that might have other, _non-RAND_ terms and conditions (such as
>> those=20 you might see associated with commercial licenses in a
>> non-standards sort of transactional relationship - which might be
>> perfectly fine in those types of circumstances, but which may not be
>> at all what one would hope to see in a standards context). In this
>> case, adding the=20 text about "and under other reasonable and
>> non-discriminatory terms and conditions" provides a level of clarity
>> that I think strikes the balance that you are seeking to protect
>> both the interests of=20 implementers and IPR holders in the
>> standards-setting work that is=20 done in the IETF.=20
> 
> Valerie, thanks for the note.  I don't have time to go through it
> all tonight, but I wanted to respond to this one.  Scott and I
> independently concluded that the working group did not support your
> interpretation.

Steve - thanks. I'll stand by for when you have time for more detail
here, but when you get to it.... are you saying that the WG thinks 
that it would be ok to have a blanket committment of royalty-free, and 
other _non-RAND_ terms? (That's what the current phrasing leaves the
door open for...)

thanks again, and sorry for the bother, Val