IPR revision Forum Subcommittee

[dzacharo]

There was agreement at F2F#61 to create a Forum Subcommittee to work on the IPR Policy revision.

Some identified concerns:

• It is not clear that the IPR Agreement is scoped to the scope of a Chartered Working Group that the Member has declared participation in.
• Some large organizations may not be aware, and do not control the IP of their Subsidiaries

Members or potential Members can add more questions or concerns based on the current IPR Policy document.

[BenWilson-Mozilla]

Here are some of the issues being considered by the IPR Subcommittee:

1. Currently, there is no mechanism to allow individuals to request to participate in technical WGs without having their affiliated entities accept the IPR Policy. A new mechanism is needed to mitigate IP risk for implementers.
   Proposed Solution: Use the W3C invited experts policy to serve as a starting point for the CABF's policy on this issue.

2. Currently, there is a type of non-voting participant called an Interested Party under which individuals can contribute technically to working groups. There are potentially some gaps in the IPR commitments that are collected:

• Individuals can accept an IPR Policy in an individual capacity, but there are no checks done to ensure that their affiliated entity (e.g., employer) has also accepted the IPR Policy
• Individuals can accept an IPR Policy in an individual capacity, but there is no vetting process to understand if the IPR risk of their affiliated entity not accepting the IPR Policy, is acceptable
• When an individual accepts the IPR Policy and names their affiliated entity, there are no checks done to ensure they have the ability to bind the affiliated entity
• The Bylaws do not appear to indicate that CABF can selectively approve individuals/entities from becoming Interested Parties.
• We are considering if this should be clarified in the "Information for Interested Parties" document
  Proposed Solution: Change how the Bylaws and IPR Policy address Interested Parties, outline a vetting process, and clarify IPR commitments from individuals and affiliated entities.

3. Some potential participants are hesitant to join, e.g., universities, certain telecom companies. We would like to understand what the concerns are and if anything needs to change regarding policies and procedures.
   Proposed Solution: Not started yet

4. Currently, there is no CLA/mechanism to ensure that contributions obtained through GitHub are subject to a signed IPR policy.
   Proposed Solution: Create a CLA and a mechanism so that contributors are asked to accept the IPR Policy if their affiliated entities have not yet accepted the IPR Policy