[Community] Notes from 2006/8/16 IC2 telecon

[Peter Davis]

I have two observations which might instigate some helpful dialog on this
list.

The first involves this snippet from the copious minutes of today's call by
Drummond:

On 8/16/2006 10:35 PM, "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed at cordance.net> wrote:

> Mary asked about the role of intellectual property, and whether it would play
> a major role, as this might affect the decision. Scott asked about the kind of
> IPR activities that the organization may be involved. For example, OSI (Open
> Source Initiative) considered an OSI-compatible certification program for
> products compatible with OSI-principles but that requires the infrastructure
> to operate such a program.

I contest that IPR claims come in two forms; one for which which processes
and procedures can mitigate, and another which such policies cannot, and
that such situations are inevitable:

1] known IPR contributions to a working groups product(s)

2] submarine and non-participant IPR for which there is no effective defense
for implementations.

To better service the likely good intentions of participants of working
groups to mitigate for [1], formal rules regarding IPR disclosures,
comparable to what the IETF presently requires, are crafted to inform
implementations, and these are overseen by a formal IDC entity (likely
taking the form of a working group as suggested during the call).

I highly recommend that IPR statements be facilitated much the same way the
IETF requires.


My second point revolves around overall architectural direction of working
group outputs.  I appreciate the somewhat chaordic nature and organizational
intent of IDC, but experience has shown, that without some (elected)
oversight to the working groups activities, tension and diversion are often
the result. The analog within the IETF is the IAB, and within OASIS at the
TAB.  While perhaps not the perfect role model, they do, at least, help
illustrate the role I am trying to portray.

The resultant output by the various working groups void such governance,
thus, would in no way benefit any activities of IDC or the community as a
whole, nor further the objectives set forth by it's participants.

=peterd  ( http://xri.net/=peterd )