WG meeting decisions for confirmation on the list

During the IPR WG's meeting in San Diego, the following proposed consensus 
calls were made. The disposition is noted below.

As is written in IETF procedure, these consensus calls have to be confirmed 
on the mailing list; I am hereby asking you for such confirmation.

In the tradition of "don't make more work than necessary", we'd like to 
make two passes at this:

- If someone believes that a consensus stated in this list does not 
represent a consensus of the working group, please state so to the list in 
a note with the subject line "DISCUSS:" and the name of the issue. If two 
people agree that an item needs discussion, the issue will be open for 
discussion on the list. We may also assign it an issue number in the 
tracker.

- If we have issues that prove to need discussion, we will make a separate 
consensus call in email for each issue as needed. For issues where there 
haven't been two people stating that we need discussion, we will conclude 
that the mailing list agrees with the consensus of the physical working 
group meeting.

Note that this is not a call on the text of the current draft. That will be 
done separately, after the draft has been updated according to these 
consensus calls.

BIG ISSUES CALLED, OUTBOUND:

1) Rights normally granted: Cite all, translate all, change code
For: 12, Against: 0: Confused: 1

2) Granting of extra rights (within those granted to the IETF Trust): By 
who?
- In special cases: IETF Trust, as requested by IESG or IAB
- In altering the general case: IETF consensus process
Yes: 14, No: 0, Don't know: 0

SMALL ISSUES CALLED, OUTBOUND:

3) What's the appropriate definition for "code" vs "non-code"? 3 
alternatives
- Markers in the text: 1
- Rules to apply: 0
- Hybrid approach: Rules, with markers that can be used if desired: 17

4) Do we mention independent submission?
Consensus is NO. 3978bis will reflect the same decision.

5) Language about copyright notices
Wordsmithed result: "Documents should not contain text that seems to 
restrict the IETF-granted rights to use the documents". Such text may be 
license text or copyright text beyond the standard IETF text.

6) How do we handle old RFCs?
The IETF Trust is in the process of obtaining the equivalent rights in old 
RFCs as in new ones (where possible). The IPR WG applauds the effort, and 
has no need to do anything.

ISSUES CALLED, INBOUND

7) Approach proposed and accepted:
- Two major sections, Philosophy and Boilerplate
- Scott Bradner will write the first section; Jorge will write the second
- The IETF Trust will have the explicit right to approve minor boilerplate 
changes consistent with philosophical goals, to handle special cases and 
minor errors

8) The function of providing publication of outside documents with a NDW 
clause is useful, and should continue.
Yes: 9 No: 1 Don't know: 0