[OpenID board] [legal] Feedback on latest drafts of OpenID IPR Policy and Process

Bill Washburn billhwashburn at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 28 16:09:22 UTC 2007

Scott, Dick,

It seems to me this is not being seen / interpreted in exactly the same way by both of you.  I take the suggestion from Dick as a proposal for how to ensure that major decisions re Working Groups and such are based on community input and that therefore such a mechanism ought to be incorporated into the procedures of the IPR process document.

This proposal that you, Scott, describe as "fantastic" is something about which you are both in strong agreement.  So far, so good, right?

I think the confusion is that I don't read this suggestion as a change in the procedure for how we come to closure on the IPR docs right now.  After all, as of today and until we complete this IPR effort there are in actuality no members of the OIDF who could vote in the first place.  I take Dick's proposal as a solid suggestion for how to ensure the strong role of the OpenID community in the major decisions regarding IPR process and not at all about how we complete this effort to establish the OpenID IPR policy regime.


----- Original Message ----
From: Dick Hardt <dick at sxip.com>
To: board at openid.net
Cc: legal at openid.net; Bill Washburn <bill at oidf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:36:10 AM
Subject: Re: [legal] [OpenID board] Feedback on latest drafts of OpenID IPR Policy and Process

On 28-Nov-07, at 7:19 AM, Scott Kveton wrote:

>>  I agree with Drummond's comments. I have not had time to review the
>> documents, and likely won't until late this week.
>> A suggestion I have around major decisions would be to put them  
>> out for
>> referendum to members of the OIDF. We can use OpenIDs to identity  
>> people and
>> easily to electronic voting. This puts the power clearly in the  
>> hands of the
>> community instead of in the hands of the board or spec council.  
>> Changes to
>> the policy and final approval of specifications and potential  
>> approval of
>> WGs could be done this way. The spec council and board could take  
>> a position
>> and make recommendation, but putting the major decisions in the  
>> hands of the
>> community clearly empowers them and keeps the board and council from
>> becoming an old boys network and leaving the membership feeling  
>> out of the
>> loop.
> I think this is a fantastic idea in the long-term but doesn't fit
> with the goals we've set out as a board to try and adopt the IPR (or
> get as close as possible) by IIW.

Is the goal to rubber stamp the IPR (primarily driven by large  
vendors) or to create an IPR that protects and empowers the  
community, which we as a board represent?

I don't think there is a second chance to do the IPR.

-- Dick

legal mailing list
legal at openid.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20071128/34a2d710/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the board mailing list