Updated minutes from Vancouver meeting

I have updated the minutes of the Vancouver meeting with a few spelling 
corrections that were sent to me privately.

For completeness, a new version is enclosed. It is also available from the 
IETF meeting materials page.

                Harald

Intellectual Property Rights WG

Meeting    : IETF 70, Tuesday December 4, 2007, 0900-1130
Location   : Vancouver, Canada
Chair      : Harald Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no>
Minutetaker: Joel Halpern <jmh <at> joelhalpern.com>
Version    : 1.2
=====================================================================
Formatting notes:
- Resolutions are marked by ***
- Jabber input channeled by someone else is marked as (David Black)
  (name in parentheses).

* Administrivia
    Review Agenda
    Note Well was presented
        Comment: Presenting at start of all sessions is a good idea.
	           That was the effect when we used overhead projector
    Agenda Bash - None

* Status
    -incoming and -outbound are in last call until December 17 2007.

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-05.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Rights Contributors provide to the IETF Trust
	Author(s)	: S. Bradner, J. Contreras
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-05.txt
	Pages		: 14
	Date		: 2008-1-4
	
The IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are
   designed to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to
   the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to
   retain as many rights as possible. This memo details the IETF
   policies on rights in Contributions to the IETF. It also describes
   the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.  This memo
   obsoletes RFC 3978 and 4748 and, with RFC 3979 and RFC xxx
   (-outgoing), replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-05.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 

Question about IETF process which is unanswered yet.

Folks - We know that all new genesis is covered under the current filing
rules for IP conveyance in BCP78 but what about revisions to existing or
expired works which were filed under RFC2026 alone??? - I think we need a
policy.

Also, what happens when an I-D is refiled from the Informational to the
Standards Track. the core IP was already filed under the scope of RFC2026
and those filing rules cannot be changed retroactively without the agreement
of all the relying partner's that the reliance on that license formed a
contract with.

Any thoughts?

Todd Glassey

Re: TLS-authz "experimental" standard and RESPONSIBILITY TO PUBLISH

Mr. Wilbur,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Wilbur" <richard.wilbur <at> gmail.com>
To: <ietf <at> ietf.org>
Cc: <campaigns <at> fsf.org>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

> To those considering the TLS-authz proposal:
>
> The patent shenanigans of RedPhone Security have reduced implementation
> status from "open" to "taxed at the whim of RedPhone Security."  This
> should be enough to disqualify the proposal from further consideration
> unless, and until, RedPhone Security grants a royalty-free license for
> all users.
>
> The imprimatur of the IETF should remain reserved for open standards.

Garbage. The IETF's Standards ***MUST*** by the definition's of the IETF per 
RFC2026 and other documents,  be available to any and all period. That means 
that ALL must be able to use the IETF to standardize an IP based system or 
protocol without concern whether they are OpenSource or licensed under some 
Creative Common's type license, or are available for Commercial Operator's 
only.

The IETF's value is its vetting process and refusing to allow people to use 
that is both civil and criminal IMHO.

>

Re: Vote on tls-authz??? (fwd)

Dean - I guess I don't get what the problem is. The IETF's process standards 
require that there be two instances of a technological specification 
implemented to create the proposed standard, so  as long as that was done, 
it seems to me that the only issue here is whether the parties who donate 
their vetting time had/or have the IP rights they are working on 
misrepresented and that's a civil fraud issue until money changes hands for 
something.

The best part is that there is a unique claim against the party playing the 
patent game under Qui Tam as well. Its pretty simple, the filing of the 
patent with the claims against the derivatives and the co-contributor's 
status would rock here and yes, under Qui Tam there is a simple Federal 
Claim against the patent interloper...

So why is everyone so uptight??? The Submarine Patent will cause MUCH more 
trouble for the patent filer, since it will be hit with co-contributor 
claims either from the IETF itself or the sponsor's of the other member's of 
the working group.

The IETF process is a nightmare for IP's that need to be controlled as it 
sits so only a madman would bring an unpatented IP to the IETF if they 
needed the protection of a patent IMHO. That means that the IETF only needs 
to mandate formal IP disclosures are mandatory and that there are 
repercussion's for their not being obeyed.

Snicker...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 

Re: Vote on tls-authz??? (fwd)

Dean - the point is that SO WHAT... the IETF's actions are to create 
standards.  Not to create Standards that are only Open Source in form. I 
suggest that those bitching and moaning here take a look at the liability 
their actions create here.

The IETF's standardization process is based on 1) being properly subjected 
to vetting, and 2) being demonstrated through two interoperability ports 
which prove the interoperability of the design. The issue here is whether 
the person who filed the IETF Submission had the right to since the 
derivative licensing under the patent application would need to be disclosed 
to all the participants, and if it wasn't - they have recourse against those 
parties fraudulently filing the draft with IETF.

So, the IETF wants to be not responsible, but your and the rest of those 
moaning about this matter are doing just that - making the IETF itself 
responsible, and opening your sponsor's to litigation based therein. Is this 
really what you intended because this is more of the BS about the IETF only 
addressing open source technologies and that is the problem here.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Anderson" <dean <at> av8.com>
To: "TS Glassey" <tglassey <at> earthlink.net>
Cc: "Richard Wilbur" <richard.wilbur <at> gmail.com>; <ietf <at> ietf.org>; 
<ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Vote on tls-authz??? (fwd)

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, TS Glassey wrote:

Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007

IESG Response to the claim of Continued Abuse of Process by IPR-WG Chair

Introduction

   On Wednesday, December 26, 2007, Dean Anderson issued an appeal
   claiming continued abuse of process by the IETF IPR WG Chair, Harald
   Alvestrand.

   The appeal is terse to the point of making it difficult to
   understand.  The IESG believes that the appeal covers the following
   points.

   1.  The IPR WG Chair has declared one side of a debate off-topic
   within the IPR WG.  The appeal cites messages addressed to Todd
   Glassey and Simon Josefsson from Harald.

   2.  The IPR WG Chair suspended Todd Glassey for asserting reasonable
   arguments contrary to the viewpoints of the IPR WG Chair and Brian
   Carpenter.

   3.  The IPR WG Chair suspended Dean Anderson for asserting reasonable
   arguments contrary to the viewpoints of the IPR WG chair and Brian
   Carpenter.

   4.  That the two suspensions are contrary to the law governing
   corporations, since a vote of the membership to suspend or expel
   members was not taken.

   5.  The listed actions by the IPR WG Chair represent a pattern of
   harassment and intimidation.

Re: Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007

This is pretty close to what I expected. Will the vote of the IETF and IESG 
members be made public so that we can see who is voting what way or will 
other actions be necessary to gain that disclosure.

Todd Glassey
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "IESG Secretary" <iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org>
To: "Dean Anderson" <dean <at> av8.net>
Cc: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>; <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:21 PM
Subject: Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007

> IESG Response to the claim of Continued Abuse of Process by IPR-WG Chair
>
> Introduction
>
>   On Wednesday, December 26, 2007, Dean Anderson issued an appeal
>   claiming continued abuse of process by the IETF IPR WG Chair, Harald
>   Alvestrand.
>
>   The appeal is terse to the point of making it difficult to
>   understand.  The IESG believes that the appeal covers the following
>   points.
>
>   1.  The IPR WG Chair has declared one side of a debate off-topic
>   within the IPR WG.  The appeal cites messages addressed to Todd
>   Glassey and Simon Josefsson from Harald.
>
>   2.  The IPR WG Chair suspended Todd Glassey for asserting reasonable
>   arguments contrary to the viewpoints of the IPR WG Chair and Brian

Re: Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007

todd glassey wrote:

> This is pretty close to what I expected.

Did you bother to read it anyway ?  Quote:

| Of course, the IETF is not a membership corporation,
| so no such vote is possible.  The IETF has no members.

> Will the vote of the IETF and IESG members
> be made public so that we can see who is
> voting what

IESG appeal discussions aren't public, they're
excluded from the "narrative minutes", compare
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/iesg-narrative.html>
for older examples.  JFTR, I figured this out
wrt SenderID and LTRU appeals two years ago.

 Frank

Re: Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007

Todd:

All Area Directors were present for the discussion, and the appeal 
response was approved unanimously.

Russ

At 05:33 PM 1/15/2008, todd glassey wrote:
>This is pretty close to what I expected. Will the vote of the IETF 
>and IESG members be made public so that we can see who is voting 
>what way or will other actions be necessary to gain that disclosure.
>
>Todd Glassey
>----- Original Message ----- From: "IESG Secretary" <iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org>
>To: "Dean Anderson" <dean <at> av8.net>
>Cc: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>; <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:21 PM
>Subject: Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007
>
>
>>IESG Response to the claim of Continued Abuse of Process by IPR-WG Chair
>>
>>Introduction
>>
>>   On Wednesday, December 26, 2007, Dean Anderson issued an appeal
>>   claiming continued abuse of process by the IETF IPR WG Chair, Harald
>>   Alvestrand.
>>
>>   The appeal is terse to the point of making it difficult to
>>   understand.  The IESG believes that the appeal covers the following