Hi, Jorge, related to the ID on side meetings during the IETF week, during the gen-art review of this draft, Ben had the following question, and Spencer followed it up:
Ben said: > -- Section 6 suggests side meetings should be (somehow "informally") covered > by NOTE WELL. I think this is a very dangerous suggestion. The rest of the > document suggests that a side meeting has no official standing. That seems to > me to mean it's no different than a group of people who coincidentally > participate in the IETF having a dinner or bar meeting on any subject at any > time. Or a hallway conversation, for that matter. By the logic of this > section, I can't really figure out how "informal" a meeting would need to be > before it no longer fell under NOTE WELL. > > In an informal meeting, the participants should be able to follow any IPR > policy they like. I can even imagine an informal meeting covered by an NDA, > where the participants want to decide if they want to have further > discussions of a subject under IETSF IPR rules or not. > > I think the best we can hope to do is suggest that side meeting organizers > and participants be explicit with their expectations on IPR and > confidentiality, so there is less chance for down-stream surprises. If we > want something stronger than that, then we really need to create a new > category of "official" meeting. Spencer said: > For what it's worth, I have the same question as Ben - if this guidance > applies to the kinds of informal meetings in restaurants and bars that the > IESG is encouraging, even if they aren't publicized and aren't open to the > community, is there any way for two or more IETF participants to talk to each > other, that's NOT under NOTE WELL? > > I think it DOES make sense to say that the kinds of informal meetings the > IESG is discouraging - in IETF meeting rooms, with agendas, mailing lists, > presentations, attendee lists, and minutes - should include NOTE WELL > notifications. > > But if I was sitting next to Adam Roach on a plane headed for the IETF (which > has happened before) when he was editor of GIN and I was chair of MARTINI > (this last part did not), and we started talking about proposed changes to > the GIN draft, is that covered? Could you propose a rephrasing of the original text (see below) that would clarify the issues they have raised? Thanks, Lars On 2011-2-28, at 19:33, Jorge Contreras wrote: > Gonzalo -- thanks for the document context. Here's my suggestion for > Section 6: > > "6. Applicability of IPR Rules > > The IETF's rules regarding intellectual property are set out in BCP 78 and > 79. Among other things, these rules provide that any "Contribution" to the > "IETF Standards Process" (each as defined in the rules themselves) is > licensed to the IETF Trust for the IETF's use in developing standards, and > also requires disclosure of related patents and patent applications. A > "Contribution" is "any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor > for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement > made within the context of an IETF activity". Thus, the fact that a > Contribution is made at one of the BOFs or other "unofficial" or > "semi-official" events described in this document does not change or limit > the applicability of the IETF's IPR rules. If you have a question > regarding the applicability of the IETF IPR rules in any specific context or > to any specific activity, you should consult your attorney or make an > inquiry to the IESG." > > Regards, > Jorge
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
