Hi, Jorge, I haven't seen a response from you yet?
Thanks, Lars On 2011-9-9, at 19:03, Lars Eggert wrote: > 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 Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
