Hi, I do not think there is consensus that what you want is what the IETF wants.
David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:46 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third > LastCall:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns] > > Ted Hardie wrote: > > Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position. > You actually > > want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of > > the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the > community actually > > discuss it. Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your > consistency. > > You're welcome. To state it more fairly, I want the result > I'm arguing for > to be built into the charter so that the WG can examine > fairly what it will > take to reach that goal. The WG cannot adopt a policy for > IETF, only propose > one. But the WG's work should be goal-directed. > > By the way, that's not such a change of tactic for that > particular IPR-WG. > You previously argued in committee that the current IETF > patent policy is > NOT a problem, and in that spirit the IPR-WG previously buried every > counter-proposal we made as "off-charter"! So let's play the > charter game > fairly, please, by the same rules you played them. Let's > charter the IPR-WG > to develop a proposal that achieves a specific goal to fix a perceived > patent problem. You can always argue against it in committee > or vote against > it if a serious proposal toward that goal gets before the > IETF as a whole. > > /Larry Rosen > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
