RE: Next Steps for W3C Coremob - Restatement of Options, Task Force Proposal - Last Call

I think your answers don't diminish the arguments I have made.

Further, the arc of this discussion has tilted toward comparing CoreMob as an IG to CoreMob as a WG or as a source of new technical work taken up by a WG, which CoreMob has not had in its scope. Thus the whole rationale for why an IG would be better is faulty, as CoreMob so far has only been creating a profile of existing W3C specs and technologies (with a preference toward mature technologies). If CoreMob were discussing new technology, in anything other than simply a reference (which is so far all it has done), then there might be a rationale for considering disclosure/licensing obligations for technical contributions in the CG vs IG debate. But it has not, and I recommend that it does not. We need an open/inclusive environment in which we can continue to define and refine what, of currently available technologies (meaning in most cases mature and already RF-licensed W3C technologies), is most important to the Core Mobile Web Platform. 

Expanding the scope of CoreMob into a broader and more forward-looking discussion, if it touches on new technology, may be better in an IG - but I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why it would be better. For now, I think we should keep CoreMob's focus on the mobile profile and ensuring that it is a reliable reflection of what developers and users need, *now*, based upon what's already specified and at least partially implemented. That should avoid all the concerns over IP licensing as well. It would be fine for some new IG to take on a broader scope, but if creating it puts up barriers to participation of the current CG members, I think it's a bad idea for the Web.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:00 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: public-coremob@w3.org; Arthur Barstow
Subject: Re: Next Steps for W3C Coremob - Restatement of Options, Task Force Proposal - Last Call


On 29 Mar 2013, at 4:40 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:

> Comments inline:

And more inline...

Ian

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 1:53 PM
> To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
> Cc: public-coremob@w3.org; Arthur Barstow
> Subject: RE: Next Steps for W3C Coremob - Restatement of Options, Task Force Proposal - Last Call
> 
> 
> Bryan wrote:
>> Please take a look at the Patent Licensing row in Ian's group 
>> comparison: <http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/compare/> (NB 
>> IGs vs. CGs).
>> 
>> IMHO, the IP commitment barrier for IGs is lower than CGs because there 
>> is NO IP commitment required for IG participants.
>> 
>> <bryan> IG members have the same disclosure requirements as any member, and CG members have the same exclusion rights as WG members for any work taken up to REC-track by a WG - whether they join the WG or not. So there is really little difference - in either case there is no IP commitment required, given that disclosure-only (IG) and the right to exclusion (CG) amount to essentially the same thing.
> 
> Hi Bryan,
> 
> I wanted to comment on your conclusion. Here is why I think that the policies for IGs and CGs do not
> amount to the same thing:
> 
> * In an IG you have no patent licensing commitment, in a CG you do. I believe that IPR departments of
> companies treat those cases differently, even if you say to them "yes, but we can exclude later."
> When I talk to people about their IPR departments, I am told that IPR departments typically want to have
> a discussion when patent commitments are involved. Furthermore, exclusion is also something that
> requires time, attention, and an internal decision. It also make public information about your patent
> portfolio you might not have otherwise shared.
> 
> <bryan> Re "It also make public information about your patent portfolio you might not have otherwise shared": the obligation to disclose essential patents applies to all W3C members regardless of the group they participate in, per [1]. So there is no difference really in terms of public information disclosure risk.

If you join the WG then you wouldn't have to disclose (except upon excluding).

> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-disclosure-requirements 
> 
> * Secondly, when you join a CG you set a social expectation that you will be licensing essential
> claims RF, even though you retain the right to exclude later. People should NOT think that it's
> ok to say "We'll I don't really have an RF commitment since I can exclude later if the work moves
> to a WG." That perspective would be contrary to the community's expectation, and if patent claims
> licensed in a CG are excluded in a WG without very good reason, that will be extremely disruptive 
> to the specification in question. I don't think companies like this sort of publicity.
> 
> <bryan> I see no reason why the "social expectation" in the CG context should be any stronger than that of a WG. While I understand the openness/transparency with which members are assumed to be collaborating on web technology in groups is limited (to say the least) by the business considerations which drive their products and services, I see no reason why CG members should be held to a more altruistic expectation.

I wouldn't say "more altrustic." 

I had this in mind from the W3C patent policy:

 "The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis."

So joining a group with the expectation that you are going to exclude everything seems to me to be inconsistent with that goal.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

> That would seem to be a big inhibitor to CG participation, and certainly was not my assumption in joining the CG's that we have. And patent claims excluded by a WG member are no less disruptive,

I didn't really mean to say more or less disruptive. But I think the case can be made that if something has been in development already for a year, for example, that to have exclusions late in the game (in a WG) by the very people who created the thing to begin with (opting in their IPR) would be fairly disruptive.

> and need to be based upon very good reasons, not least because exclusion is a self-defeating exercise: at once keeping technology out of the Web, and also diminishing the IP's value to the underlying native platforms in the process. Members have an easy and better solution; don't join a group, or exit the group when push comes to shove. Because while in all cases disclosure is mandatory,

(except by those who make RF licensing commitments to the spec in question.)

> licensing (and the need for exclusion) can be easily avoided.
> 




> Ian
> 
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447

Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 22:24:29 UTC