RFC 3669 (rfc3669) - Page 3 of 17

Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues

RFC 3669                   WG IPR Guidelines               February 2004


   requirement that technology must be licensed royalty-free.  This is
   currently not possible in the IETF.

   Even if the IETF had membership agreements, they would be difficult
   to formulate in a way that covered IPR issues, because the IETF's
   work includes technology from other sources and because the IETF
   collaborates with organizations that work with different approaches
   to intellectual property.  The IETF can encounter four different IPR
   situations, at almost any time during the life of a document:

   o  A document submitter notes their (or their represented
      organization's) IPR claim regarding the contents of the document.

   o  A non-submitter IETF participant claims that the contents of a
      document are covered by their (or their represented
      organization's) own IPR.

   o  An IETF participant notes IPR that is claimed by an individual or
      organization with which neither an author of the document, nor the
      participant noting the IPR, have an affiliation.

   o  An individual or organization that does not participate in the
      IETF, but that monitors its activities, discovers that a document
      intersects that individual's or organization's established or
      pending intellectual property claims.  It may come forward right
      away, or wait and let the IETF work progress.

   In working group activities, the IETF does not have detailed rules
   for each situation.  Working groups have essentially only one rule
   they can invoke -- about individuals not participating in activities
   related to a technology if they do not disclose known IPR.  Beyond
   that a working group can only make recommendations and requests.

   Since every case is unique, and there are close to no general rules,
   working groups need a great deal of freedom in dealing with IPR
   issues.  However, some amount of consistency is important so that
   both contributors and users of eventual standards can know what to
   expect.

3.  The Approach

   The goal of this memo is not to make rules.  The goal is to give
   working groups as much information as possible to make informed
   decisions, and then step out of the way.  The other IPR working group
   memos [5][6] lay out what needs to be done once a particular piece of
   technology is selected as a working group draft.  However, this
   doesn't help when a working group is trying to decide whether or not
   to select a technology in the first place.  This third memo is



Brim                         Informational