IPR Policy next steps

[eran]

Working on the IPR policy is one of the most important next step for the OWF. If we accomplished nothing but a new and improved IPR policy – it will be good enough for me. I had a few off line chats with people about both the policy itself as well as how to get there. The main issues / concerns I heard are:

* Lack of clarity as to who gets to decide on IPR issues:

Since this is a foundation of individuals, there are no protections or guidelines about companies. The problem is that while we as individual get to decide what we feel is right for the community, it is ultimately the decision of corporations if they will agree to that policy and allow their employees to be bound by it. Because different companies (or classes of companies) are sensitive to IPR policies in different ways, being able to control or influence the IPR policy may give people unbalanced power to exclude to impose restrictions on other companies. The fact that this is an organization of individuals does not mean that these individuals don’t have corporate responsibilities. We currently don’t have any mechanism for individuals to declare their affiliation and any conflicts they may have. It is not clear who gets to vote on the IPR policy: the board? The membership? Another entity?

* Limitations of conducting the IPR policy negotiations in plain sight:

We are not likely to get much adoption to an IPR policy that has not been reviewed by many stakeholders. In order to build a safe but inclusive policy, we need to solicit the feedback and participation of as many companies and organizations as possible. The problem is that many of them will not be able or willing to provide their feedback in public on a mailing list. There are a few valid reasons, for example, if you are a lawyer serving a client, posting your legal analysis of a license in public can end up being a liability for your clients later. In addition, my experience working on the OAuth and OpenSocial IPR showed that companies are able to reach agreements but the path to those agreements is often dirty and argumentative. The fact that these discussions are held in confidence allows the lawyers of different companies to work together with the understanding that everything is kept of the record and the dirty laundry is kept private. At the end, you don’t know which company pushed for which change, but you do get to review the final draft.

* Lack of foundation counsel:

The OWF is not likely to be able to afford to hire its own IPR lawyer. To raise funds for hiring legal services will require funds from corporations who are not likely to donate money that will be used (potentially) against their interest. Without a hired lawyer, the OWF depends heavily on free legal advice from list members as well as the legal advice of companies we engage for feedback. What this means is that in the most likely scenario, the IPR policy will be written by corporate lawyers and balanced by the community with requests for changes. This means that we will need to solicit advice from non-corporate IPR experts (or at least companies from different sides of the IPR world) to counter any possible bias and loopholes in the policy.

---

It doesn’t look like we were able to make much progress with the two drafts posted to the list, or with collecting test cases. I am not sure waiting longer for more community involvement is practical. What I would like to suggest is something like this:

1. The board will create an IPR committee which will be anchored in the foundation bylaws. The committee will be the only body allowed to make IPR policy decisions and will require a 3/4 quorum/majority for passing decisions. Any decision made by the committee will need to be ratified by the board (simple majority vote), but the board will only have the ability to vote it up or down, not make changes directly. This moves the actual decision making process to a group more qualified to make it, but keeps the oversight and control of the elected board.
2. The committee will have rules regarding multiple votes from people employed by the same employer. It will provide a safety feature against one company being able to influence the committee to their advantage and against a competitor. Work within the committee will require strict affiliation disclosures made available to the public. The committee should allow multiple participation from the same company but not multiple votes. One way to do that is only allow one committee member from each affiliation, but allow invited guests and experts that only require a single member to sponsor to join the discussions.
3. The committee will be allowed to conduct off-the-record meetings or confidential discussions as long as no votes are made without making all drafts and IPR policy proposals public with enough time for the community to review and provide feedback. This will allow companies to be direct about their concerns without making it hard for them to participate. It will ensure that no decision is being made without the community’s review but will create a layer of abstraction from the legal negotiations to the proposed drafts. The committee will be allowed to make public which companies have issues with each proposals but any more information will require permission from those companies to release (so people can know who is blocking or is in the way to achieving consensus).
   

What is left open in my proposal is how to elect people to the committee and what rules to put in place with regard to its makeup:

1. Should board members be allowed to serve as voting members of the IPR committee? This can go both ways but since the idea is to make the board a check and balance in the process, it might be better to restrict voting rights. This means board members will be able to participate but will not have voting power until the committee’s decision is up for a yes/no vote.
2. Do companies get to decide who will represent them or do individuals state their affiliation and the community/members/board vote on who will be in the committee? In other words, do we pick companies to have a vote or do we pick individuals with a stated affiliation and enforce rules that only the highest voted from each company gets in?
3. How long do people serve in the committee? Does the committee picks it own chair or does the board/members decide?
   

I would like to propose this:

1. Ask anyone interested in being a committee member (does not have to be a foundation member) to apply. The application will require the candidate to state all affiliation and potential conflicts. It will ask for past IPR experience.
2. Conduct an STV style vote for a large enough committee (13, 15, or 17 members) in which candidates are disqualified as soon as someone from the same affiliation is elected. In case of a tie, we can ask the candidate to decide (since they are restricted due to their common affiliation). If they cannot decide there is another vote to resolve it (but I am not sure how that will work with an STV system).
3. Committee members serve for 1 year and can get reelected.
4. The committee than elects it chairperson among its members.
   

I think the faster we can form this committee, the sooner we will be on our way to produce the IPR policy.

EHL

[Gabe Wachob]

I like generally the fact that there will be a smaller IPR committee that is more focused (and hopefully experienced) than the board and especially the membership.

Needless to say, I'm interested. 

Let me reply inline with +1's where i agree, feedback in additon. 

On Sep 8, 2008, at 4:44 PM, eran wrote:

Working on the IPR policy is one of the most important next step for the OWF. If we accomplished nothing but a new and improved IPR policy – it will be good enough for me.

+1

Me too. This has been my central motivation from day one. 

I had a few off line chats with people about both the policy itself as well as how to get there. The main issues / concerns I heard are:

* Lack of clarity as to who gets to decide on IPR issues:

Since this is a foundation of individuals, there are no protections or guidelines about companies. The problem is that while we as individual get to decide what we feel is right for the community, it is ultimately the decision of corporations if they will agree to that policy and allow their employees to be bound by it. Because different companies (or classes of companies) are sensitive to IPR policies in different ways, being able to control or influence the IPR policy may give people unbalanced power to exclude to impose restrictions on other companies. The fact that this is an organization of individuals does not mean that these individuals don’t have corporate responsibilities.

Furthermore, the community has an interest in (to a *certain extent*) accommodating the interest of some large organizations so that they can be induced to participate. 

If we wanted to be hostile to large organizations, this whole effort would be really easy. For me, the challenge (and the reason this committee has to be more focused and made of folks with some experience) is that we need to find a *balance* - so even though I may have corporate responsibilities, I think its responsible to the community to understand and keep in mind the interests of the large organizations as well as the community. 

We currently don’t have any mechanism for individuals to declare their affiliation and any conflicts they may have. It is not clear who gets to vote on the IPR policy: the board? The membership? Another entity?

I'd say the individual membership with direction/influence from the cmte and the board that votes in certain directions are likely to alienate the goal of bringing organizations in that are interested in the goals of the org. 

That being said, it may be practical to have a "organizational advisory board" made up of reps from orgs who can state the position of these orgs unequivocally (instead of such pronouncements coming from the board or cmte about the liklihood of big orgs being willing to participate under a given IPR regime). 

* Limitations of conducting the IPR policy negotiations in plain sight:

We are not likely to get much adoption to an IPR policy that has not been reviewed by many stakeholders. In order to build a safe but inclusive policy, we need to solicit the feedback and participation of as many companies and organizations as possible. The problem is that many of them will not be able or willing to provide their feedback in public on a mailing list. There are a few valid reasons, for example, if you are a lawyer serving a client, posting your legal analysis of a license in public can end up being a liability for your clients later. In addition, my experience working on the OAuth and OpenSocial IPR showed that companies are able to reach agreements but the path to those agreements is often dirty and argumentative. The fact that these discussions are held in confidence allows the lawyers of different companies to work together with the understanding that everything is kept of the record and the dirty laundry is kept private. At the end, you don’t know which company pushed for which change, but you do get to review the final draft.

Big +1. This sort of review by large orgs will *never* happen in a fully transparent process. 

* Lack of foundation counsel:

The OWF is not likely to be able to afford to hire its own IPR lawyer. To raise funds for hiring legal services will require funds from corporations who are not likely to donate money that will be used (potentially) against their interest. Without a hired lawyer, the OWF depends heavily on free legal advice from list members as well as the legal advice of companies we engage for feedback. What this means is that in the most likely scenario, the IPR policy will be written by corporate lawyers and balanced by the community with requests for changes. This means that we will need to solicit advice from non-corporate IPR experts (or at least companies from different sides of the IPR world) to counter any possible bias and loopholes in the policy.

Agreed, and I'd like to help in this recruiting effort. 

---

It doesn’t look like we were able to make much progress with the two drafts posted to the list, or with collecting test cases. I am not sure waiting longer for more community involvement is practical. What I would like to suggest is something like this:

1. The board will create an IPR committee which will be anchored in the foundation bylaws. The committee will be the only body allowed to make IPR policy decisions and will require a 3/4 quorum/majority for passing decisions. Any decision made by the committee will need to be ratified by the board (simple majority vote), but the board will only have the ability to vote it up or down, not make changes directly. This moves the actual decision making process to a group more qualified to make it, but keeps the oversight and control of the elected board.

+1

1. The committee will have rules regarding multiple votes from people employed by the same employer. It will provide a safety feature against one company being able to influence the committee to their advantage and against a competitor. Work within the committee will require strict affiliation disclosures made available to the public. The committee should allow multiple participation from the same company but not multiple votes. One way to do that is only allow one committee member from each affiliation, but allow invited guests and experts that only require a single member to sponsor to join the discussions.

+1

We have to also remember that these conversations can be sensitive, so there is a tension between allowing anyone in on these discussions vs transparency. 

1. The committee will be allowed to conduct off-the-record meetings or confidential discussions as long as no votes are made without making all drafts and IPR policy proposals public with enough time for the community to review and provide feedback. This will allow companies to be direct about their concerns without making it hard for them to participate. It will ensure that no decision is being made without the community’s review but will create a layer of abstraction from the legal negotiations to the proposed drafts. The committee will be allowed to make public which companies have issues with each proposals but any more information will require permission from those companies to release (so people can know who is blocking or is in the way to achieving consensus).

+1 Its not only about layer of abstraction, but also a "safe zone" for large orgs to participate indirectly, or unofficially, etc. Very important to facilitate this sort of cooperation while an org is in the process of exploring the possibility of support, etc. 

What is left open in my proposal is how to elect people to the committee and what rules to put in place with regard to its makeup:

1. Should board members be allowed to serve as voting members of the IPR committee? This can go both ways but since the idea is to make the board a check and balance in the process, it might be better to restrict voting rights. This means board members will be able to participate but will not have voting power until the committee’s decision is up for a yes/no vote.

I don't have a problem with limited overlap. But maybe for the purposes of simplicity they should not? 

1. Do companies get to decide who will represent them or do individuals state their affiliation and the community/members/board vote on who will be in the committee? In other words, do we pick companies to have a vote or do we pick individuals with a stated affiliation and enforce rules that only the highest voted from each company gets in?

Individuals I think. I think if we have an official way for orgs to give input, (rather than control), we should have enough representation for them. 

That being said, I think this cmte is likely to be dominated by people affiliated with large organizations because those orgs can sponsor those folks to spend their time on OWF work. There's a reason you're able to spend so much time on this, Eran ;) 

1. How long do people serve in the committee? Does the committee picks it own chair or does the board/members decide?

Is this a standing committee, or one with limited time existence? I was thinking that this committee would do its work, produce the IPR policies, etc and be done? Is there some operational duties I'm forgetting about? 

I would like to propose this:

1. Ask anyone interested in being a committee member (does not have to be a foundation member) to apply. The application will require the candidate to state all affiliation and potential conflicts. It will ask for past IPR experience.
2. Conduct an STV style vote for a large enough committee (13, 15, or 17 members) in which candidates are disqualified as soon as someone from the same affiliation is elected. In case of a tie, we can ask the candidate to decide (since they are restricted due to their common affiliation). If they cannot decide there is another vote to resolve it (but I am not sure how that will work with an STV system).
3. Committee members serve for 1 year and can get reelected.
4. The committee than elects it chairperson among its members.

This is all fine, but is a committee of 13+ workable? Maybe 7 or 9? I'm not sure what that large number accomplishes besides making meetings impossible to schedule and email floods. 

I think the faster we can form this committee, the sooner we will be on our way to produce the IPR policy.

+1e6

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

> Is this a standing committee, or one with limited time existence? I  
> was thinking that this committee would do its work, produce the IPR  
> policies, etc and be done? Is there some operational duties I'm  
> forgetting about?

It is not likely that we will get this 100% right with the first
license/policy we create. In addition, we need to make sure that at
any given time, it is clear who can change the OWF IPR policy and how.
So if we get this right the first time, it will just mean this bunch
of people will get elected each year to guard the statuesque.

Another role can be to deal with IPR disputes and issues when a
specification communities has questions or needs help to facilitate
the IPR process. I am not sure this is the right place but it might
be.

As for size, I feel 7 is too low. Maybe 17 is crazy but 11/13 sounds
better to me than 7/9. We need to provide room for enough conflicting
views to achieve balance.

EHL

[eran]

BTW, if it wasn’t clear – if we decide to limit committee voting to non-board members, I would give up my board seat to be on the IPR committee. And while it would be nice to serve on both, I think this limitation makes sense and also helps increase the overall diversity of those in “power”.

EHL

[DeWitt Clinton]

We may also have the issue that both Ben Laurie and I are likely interested in, and may even be considered qualified for, a role helping on the IPR side of things.

I'd hate to think that one of us needs to leave our job at Google just to be eligible for participation on the committee.

The good news is that we only occasionally agree with each other, much less our employer, so it probably all cancels out in the end.

More seriously, I'd like us to consider not placing restrictions based on employment when it comes to OWF work.  I understand the potential for conflict, but I also trust the community to find representatives that can transcend such conflicts.

Cheers,

-DeWitt

[eran]

Since you brought up a very specific issue (which is good – I don’t like talking about theoretical edge cases), I would like to ask a follow-up question:

 

You and Ben are both board members so you will have a final vote on whatever is produced by the IPR committee. If you participated in every discussion but did not vote as a committee member, only as a board member, would that be an acceptable solution? In this case, you will have someone else from Google (assuming both you and Ben would rather keep your board seats) to run for election to this committee and they will sponsor your participation in the IPR workgroup. If not I promise to… J

 

EHL

[David Recordon]

I think in general this sounds like a good plan and I'd love to see you lead it Eran.  It fits the model of how we reached consensus with the OpenID Foundation IPR policy and process (whether the specifics of the policies are seen as good or bad).  We had a core group of ~6 stakeholders really working on driving it forward and found initial F2F meetings to be the most beneficial.  Just speaking from liking to define problems with individual goals, I'd lean toward chartering this comittee to do the initial work and then disbanding it.  I imagine that a year from now when/if we readdress it the people that make sense will be different.

So I would be fully in support of the board chartering an IPR comittee led by Eran to develop the needed documents to apply to a specification to ensure that it is freely implementable and the needed CLA for contributors to clearly make contributions which will later be bound by the license.  I'd reccomend a core group of around 6 to 9 with the understanding that they'll include many others for feedback throughout the process.  I think it would then be reasonable for the board to request bi-weekly updates from this comittee as to progress since it is so vital that it happens and quickly.

--David

[David Recordon]

I actually have no problem with both DeWitt and Ben participating on this committee and then also having a board vote.  It will be extremely apparent if the committee is being bullied in any direction.  I'd rather see us get the best group of people together to solve this problem rather than worrying about corporate affiliations.  Isn't that what the ASF would do?

--David

[Lawrence Rosen]

I am interested in the IPR policy committee. /Larry

 

 

---

[Pelle Braendgaard]

I would be interested in serving on this committee. If for no other
reason having someone representing small business/freelance interests.

I agree that a committee is a good idea. Most people aren't going to
be interested in the day to day negotiations for this. However I'm
still not sure I buy the need for secrecy. I'm sure the large company
counsel want this, yet I'm pretty sure this is mostly because no one
has said no to them before. And I really can not see any good reasons
why they should continue to dictate rules to an organization, which is
specifically setup to focus on the individuals who are behind new
standards. In particular as it benefits them more to be inside the
movement than out.

Granted one of the goals is to create a specific IPR policy that
everyone can accept. However this also means they have to be more
flexible and agile than they may have been in the past. We have to
listen to their needs definitely. But It also means that we should be
prepared to move forward without individual big players if they want
to start dictating the IPR process and not want to be part of the
community.

So what am I basically saying, we need to move ahead quickly on this.
It seems like some large companies are willing to move quickly and
some aren't. Let's learn from the OAuth/OpenID process and move ahead
without letting the filibusters hold the process up.

Pelle

--
http://agree2.com - Reach Agreement!
http://extraeagle.com - Solutions for the electronic Extra Legal world
http://stakeventures.com - Bootstrapping blog

[eran]

If a Yahoo! lawyer goes on record to say that section X in the IPR agreement means something, and that is why Yahoo! has a problem with it, it is a liability for Yahoo! if *any* lawyer for the company ever argues the opposite side in court. All the other party has to do is bring a printout of this opinion and show that Yahoo!'s own legal team thinks otherwise. This is one small example.

This is not (just) about big companies trying to control the conversation, but how they are required to operate under the law as public companies. If a lawyer for a company says something in public that is viewed by someone like you as hostile to the free world, and you write a blog post about it putting them on the spot for it - it can lead to PR problems, shareholder lawsuits, and other party favorites. While you might think this is acceptable, it just means under these terms no one will talk to you. At least not enough to generate the kind of participation that we want.

But I agree there should be strict limits on secrecy.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-web...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> dis...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pelle Braendgaard
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 9:17 PM
> To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: IPR Policy next steps
>

[eran]

It is too early to start filling spots. I am much more interested in the rules and structure of this committee than if I or someone else will sit on it (or chair it). Most of these concerns have been raised to me in private by people who have done this work before and I have a good reason to learn from their experience. I wasn’t part of the OpenID negotiation, but would argue that the OpenID process failed to get the right balance of companies involved given that they all worry more about their IP than implementation exposure.

 

Creating a short-lived committee is a possible solution but it doesn’t address the valid concerns that people have about making sure 4 people (in case of full board quorum) can choose to change the IPR rules with a simple vote. If all the OWF did was produce licenses and process guidelines/templates, this would not be a problem. It would simply create a catalog of licenses communities can pick from. But given the plan to tie the IPR process with an on-going incubation program where actual specs will be created, changing the rules of the game by a simple board vote (that very well may include multiple people from the same company, city, industry, mindset, etc.) is a concern.

 

I am not suggesting we build an elaborate system around edge cases. This is something I very much object to. But I think we do need to find the right balance in handling how IPR policies will be created, and make sure it is done with a longer outlook than the next few months.

 

Your suggestions/request for bi-weekly updates to the board seems a bit out of place, especially since as soon as there is any draft or progress to be shared, it will be open to the entire community. In my proposal, the board should be kept up to date whenever possible to make sure it is aligned with the work done by the committee. Otherwise there is a  risk of wasting effort on a policy that will not get approved by the board. But the by-weekly requirement just sounds funny.

 

EHL

 

 

 

 

From: open-web...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Recordon
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:41 PM
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IPR Policy next steps

 

I think in general this sounds like a good plan and I'd love to see you lead it Eran.  It fits the model of how we reached consensus with the OpenID Foundation IPR policy and process (whether the specifics of the policies are seen as good or bad).  We had a core group of ~6 stakeholders really working on driving it forward and found initial F2F meetings to be the most beneficial.  Just speaking from liking to define problems with individual goals, I'd lean toward chartering this comittee to do the initial work and then disbanding it.  I imagine that a year from now when/if we readdress it the people that make sense will be different.

[David Recordon]

My point of bi-weekly, and maybe I shouldn't have said any timing, was just that I think it is vital for this committee not just to go off for a few months and then emerge at the end with something.  Rather make sure throughout that process others know what is going on.  That is all. :)

I don't have strong feelings over how to structure it.  We can quibble about if the OpenID process failed or not offline, but at the end of the day a dozen companies and individuals ranging in size all signed the non-assert for OpenID specs.

--David

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

I'm interested in serving on the committee if there is one. I think I
have relevant background.

That said, I also think that :

1) The committee should work in plain sight of "the membership",
whatever that turns out to be. I don't know what "off the record"
really means, and I think that anything material should be part of OWF
internal records. Certainly, there can be direct discussion between
committee members and interested parties that don't need to be cc-ing
the committee list, but information from such discussions should be
disclosed via summary (or forwarded directly if possible) to the
archived comittee list (see #2)

2) The committee should work on an archived list that is available to
the membership. It is not public. There should be a companion public
list as well where any non-confidential work gets done.

3) The committee shouldn't require a board vote for everything they
output, because there's no reason to believe the board has a better
idea than the committee. That's the point of board delegation. The
board of course has oversight - they can reverse things the committee
does. But I'd much rather see "optimistic locking" here.

4) I'm nervous about corporate voting blocks, but not too nervous. To
solve, I would recommend that a) everyone simply discloses employer or
other relevant affiliation and b) we have a soft rule that individuals
with association to the same entity cannot comprise more than X% of
the committee. (Ideally, the membership will enforce a similar rule
for the board through voting)

5) I see no reason why being a board member is relevant (see #3).

6) Companies don't have a say in the committee membership. Period.

7) Treat the committee like a PMC at the ASF (-ish) Start with
whoever steps up to help. Have that group decide on a "chair".
Suggest this chair to the board for ratification (formal). Members
are part of the committee as long as they want to serve. As new OWF
members and others participate w/ the committee, the committee members
can internally discuss, vote and offer them membership, formal/
informal? ratification of which is by the board. I can see no reason
to throw people off after a year, or make them have to get voted back
in. Inactive people have no cost or drag. Disruptive people can be
thrown off by the chair, w/ formal/informal? board ratification. In
the above, when I say "informal board ratification", I mean the chair
lets the board know in general, and the board acks it - not that
there's a formal motion for approval by the board. Just loose-coupled
information flow.

I'm sure I'll have more later.

geir

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

I want to note one thing. There seemed to be a lot of worry about
being both a board member and IPC member, which hints that some
perceive a very top-down, board-centric organization. (Compare the
OSI vs the ASF)

I believe we must be sure to "de-emphasize" the board in daily
operations - push "down" to committees, and get out of the way ->
delegate and trust.

The board should be focused on high level OWF issues, general
oversight, and dealing w/ minutiae only when really required.

Worrying about people being a board member and IP committee member
should be a NOOP - they are different responsibilities, skills, etc....

geir

[Sam Ruby]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> I'm interested in serving on the committee if there is one. I think I
> have relevant background.

Given Geir's interests, I have no such interest myself, as I would add
little to diversity given Geir's presence. I agree with his points,
but would like to emphasize one.

> 2) The committee should work on an archived list that is available to
> the membership. It is not public. There should be a companion public
> list as well where any non-confidential work gets done.

The fact that there exists the potential for conversation should not
be made public (for whatever reason) does not need to imply that all
conversations need to be private, nor does it even imply that privacy
should be the default.

I would suggest that the OWF would be well served by a policy of
"default public" and "decisions in public", coupled with every
adequate means for accepting input in private.

We have had both IBM and ASF counsel participating on our public list.
Our ASF counsel will occasionally reply to the private list on a
topic brought up on the public list. Counsel other than the ASF's own
are not subscribed to the private list, but may send input there, and
may be explicitly cc'ed on specific replies.

- Sam Ruby

[Geir Magnusson]

On Sep 9, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm interested in serving on the committee if there is one. I
>> think I
>> have relevant background.
>
> Given Geir's interests, I have no such interest myself, as I would add
> little to diversity given Geir's presence. I agree with his points,
> but would like to emphasize one.

Are you kidding? Sam, you offer an incredible amount of value and
different experiences.

Seriously.

>
>> 2) The committee should work on an archived list that is available to
>> the membership. It is not public. There should be a companion public
>> list as well where any non-confidential work gets done.
>
> The fact that there exists the potential for conversation should not
> be made public (for whatever reason) does not need to imply that all
> conversations need to be private, nor does it even imply that privacy
> should be the default.
>
> I would suggest that the OWF would be well served by a policy of
> "default public" and "decisions in public", coupled with every
> adequate means for accepting input in private.

Agreed - that's what I meant. But it was 5:30 am on the train... :)

[Ben Laurie]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:44 AM, eran <er...@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> Should board members be allowed to serve as voting members of the IPR
> committee? This can go both ways but since the idea is to make the board a
> check and balance in the process, it might be better to restrict voting
> rights. This means board members will be able to participate but will not
> have voting power until the committee's decision is up for a yes/no vote.

This seems like an empty gesture to me since the board have a veto, in effect.

[Sam Ruby]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Geir Magnusson <ge...@10gen.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm interested in serving on the committee if there is one. I
>>> think I
>>> have relevant background.
>>
>> Given Geir's interests, I have no such interest myself, as I would add
>> little to diversity given Geir's presence. I agree with his points,
>> but would like to emphasize one.
>
> Are you kidding? Sam, you offer an incredible amount of value and
> different experiences.
>
> Seriously.

Not kidding. If there is a private list where I'm privy to the
confidential input of Yahoo! lawyers, I have more potential conflict
of interest concerns to disentangle. If I felt this group was heading
in a fundamentally wrong direction and I was in a unique position to
fix it, I would feel differently; but I feel neither.

If you are ever unsure of something, you know where to find me. And
perhaps this group may opt to do more of its work in public, which
isn't a bad outcome either.

I will say that this group has an unhealthy fixation on fixed number
of members and voting. Odd numbers much above 7 rarely work out as
you might intend as there are absences, but in a well run group, this
doesn't matter. The ASF board has nine members and every couple of
months we have somebody who doesn't show. Not that it matters much,
as nearly every vote is a landslide, if not outright consensus. If a
significant minority is uncomfortable, we rarely push forward with a
vote.

- Sam Ruby

[Stephan Wenger]

Folks,

I have been lurking here for a while (and have reviewed many of the old
postings), and think now it's the time for me to become active. I work for
Nokia, and I'm one of a three person team responsible for patent policies in
the several hundred organizations we are involved in. I don't consider me
as an expert on Web technologies, and don't think I'm qualified to
contribute to any aspect of OWF-sponsored technical work. While having a CS
degree, I haven't written code in many years. My standardization experience
is mostly related to video codecs and supporting documents, in committees
such as JVT, ITU, MPEG, and the IETF. OTOH, I have helped phrasing half a
dozen or so IPR policies, including a few that embraced new concepts, and a
few that were successfully tested in practice (including in courts).

What you can expect from me is to contribute the perspective of a large,
somewhat conservative device company that is moving towards becoming an
Internet company. Having the type of market share we enjoy, that company is
also likely to become a major "customer" to the specifications created by
OWF-sponsored groups---if the technology merits inclusion into our
products/services, and if the IPR policies are acceptable to us. We have to
worry more than some about antitrust and non-US legal issues, and input to
the IPR policy work reflecting that is also something you may hear from me.

I would be more than happy to serve on an OWF IPR policy committee, if one
were formed.

As a topical input, let me suggest that OWF should at least attempt to find
an experienced lawyer that offers to take on the actual drafting of an IPR
policy pro bono. If one were found, the layman committee's work could be
reduced to creating a high-level term sheet, and the review of a drafted
policy. This is the way many SDOs that lack corporate membership work, and
there are a number of lawyers (I'm aware of at least one on this list) that
are known to have taken on work like this.

Best regards,
Stephan Wenger

[Lawrence Rosen]

We might want to consider something like the W3C process: During the time I participated on the committee that formulated their current patent policies, notes were kept of our conversations. Those notes and the conversations themselves were confidential amongst the discussants (by our individual agreement) to encourage candor.

 

Written minutes summarizing those discussions were then presented for approval by the committee and distribution to interested parties and the public.

 

The key to this process was that conversations were carefully summarized for public consumption to avoid disclosing specific opinions by name or affiliation. For example, "there was a memorable discussion about whether patents should be free or RAND and the committee decided to postpone decision for another week" would alert anyone who cared to know that this might be an important issue to worry about. I'm simplifying, of course.... But afterwards I couldn't disclose the specific opinions of the representatives of Microsoft and IBM and Oracle, and I still can't.

 

By the way, the W3C patent policy committee grew and shrank during this period, but everyone who participated was bound by the same confidentiality and public disclosure rules. It sure encouraged candor and finally, after a couple of years, exhausted consensus!

 

/Larry

 

 

---

[Jonathan Vanasco]

About three years ago I founded a startup to make open source
software; market development turned it essentially into an IP holding
company & consultancy .

We've spent more money and time with lawyers than I'd like - which has
given me a unique experience spanning the liberal minded coder
mentality 'FREE AND EASY FOR ALL' to the paranoid investor /
overzealous lawyer who only thinks about protecting assets.

I'd be interested in working on general IPR policies and guidelines
that allow for maximum free usage and 'detente' amongst contributers +
implementers, while isolating any disagreements to the bickering
parties.

[Jim Jagielski]

I'd be interested, but in the interests of diversity I would be fine with recusing myself...

[Ben Laurie]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd be interested, but in the interests of diversity I would be fine with
> recusing myself...

I doubt we'll limit membership.

> >
>

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

Diversity from too many ASF members? That doesn’t seem like a problem.

 

EHL

 

From: open-web...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Jagielski
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 6:42 AM
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IPR Policy next steps

 

I'd be interested, but in the interests of diversity I would be fine with recusing myself...

[Jim Jagielski]

cool