- From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:44:12 -0700
- To: rayw@netscape.com (Ray Whitmer)
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
The PAG section (http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice#sec-PAG) of the Current Practice Policy identifies the conditions under which a PAG is set up. ............................................ David C. Fallside, IBM Ext Ph: 530.477.7169 Int Ph: 544.9665 fallside@us.ibm.com Monday, October 07, 2002 12:46 PM To: David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org From: rayw@netscape.com (Ray Whitmer) Subject: Re: Proposal for issue 327 David Fallside wrote: >Issue 327 expresses a number of concerns regarding IP [1]. I propose to >close this issue by noting that (a) the concerns will be covered as part of >W3C's normal process of evaluating IP during the Recommendation track, and >(b) discussion of IP matters is generally intended to take place outside >WGs -- hence the PAG mechanism for handling a WG's serious IP issues -- and >so the LC issue list is not the place to lodge the issue. > > It is not clear to me that "discussion of IP matters is generally intended to take place outside WGs." It is the job of the WG to produce a spec that conforms to the charter, and the IP requirements are requirements that should be taken into account. It is clear that it must take place outside of the WG if the WG has not been able to resolve the problem. But I think the WG should be the first line of defense. I could be understanding something wrong here, though. I think that the WG must try to receive more information from those who think they have IP that is applicable and try to resolve the problem. The last call issue was raised by me, and I was not the first to question the statements that had been made by some participants which seemed problematic if a RF (zero cost) specification was the goal. It seems to me that the working group should come to one of the following conclusions: 1. The WG feels that there is no problem and vote to decree that there is no real problem here, so the specification will go forwards and W3C may choose to form a PAG if they disagree. 2. There is a potential problem, and they will work on it with the members who made the statements that seem to be a problem to determine the nature of the claims that may need to be paid for to implement SOAP. 3. There is a potential problem, and the WG is not able to deal with it, so they will call for a PAG to try to resolve the problem. In another case, the result of the PAG and W3C actions has been to throw it back to the WG to ferret out the problems and solve them. The LC was where I thought people were supposed to try to get a resolution on this sort of concern. Then, I may not understand the current practices correctly. Ray Whitmer rayw@netscape.com
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 17:47:14 UTC