Hi Goffi, Thanks for raising this topic. It is one that interests a lot of people - the quick responses to your initial message show that, too.
As for bringing this before Board: I think the discussion so far shows there is far from consensus on whether the current IPR policy sufficiently addresses AI-assisted contributions, or whether additional policy/guidance/disclosure requirements/procedural changes are needed: Some participants argue the existing policy is already sufficient, while others believe AI-generated material introduces significant risks that are not adequately addressed today. Given that, my suggestion would be to continue the mailing list discussion a bit longer to clarify concrete problem statements and possible outcomes. That way, the Board can benefit from the technical and legal perspectives being surfaced here. I believe this will reduce the risk of prematurely forcing a decision, before the tradeoffs are better articulated. I'm particularly interested in the formulation of concrete, actionable proposals. I think that is where the real challenge lies, especially given that there appears to be agreement on the following points: - The legal situation is jurisdiction-dependent and evolving. - Enforcement of any strict prohibition would be difficult in practice. Once the discussion produces a clearer set of possible approaches, I think it would make sense to bring those to Board for consideration. Kind regards, Guus On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 7:50 PM Goffi <[email protected]> wrote: > Should this matter be on the board agenda? Do we want to discuss it more > here first? Thanks > > > Le 11 mai 2026 09:50:19 GMT+02:00, Goffi <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> Hello everybody, >> >> I would like to bring a discussion on AI policy. We can't really ignore >> anymore that modern models have become very capable, and I suspect that they >> are used for spec authoring. >> >> This raises, I believe, copyright issues: if someone use AI to redact a whole >> section of a spec, how can we be sure that it's not an existing specs for >> some >> other place, possibly under copyright, that is copied or paraphrased? How can >> an author guarantee that it's original work (hint: they can't)? >> >> I think that there are 3 distinct uses: >> >> 1. As a light formatting/checking help, for instance to generate a table from >> a human written section, to correct the formulation of a sentence, or to >> draft >> an example. This is notably useful for non native English speakers. >> >> 2. As a help to search existing state of art on some feature, or any kind of >> data, without writing anything in a protoXEP. >> >> 3. As a way to generate whole sections. >> >> Instinctively, and If we put aside ethical and ecological concerns about >> LLMs, >> I think that 1. and 2. are OK, and 3. should be forbidden. And in all cases, >> it should be disclosed. >> >> I would like your feedback on this matter, in particular people with legal >> knowledge. >> >> I would like to avoid a flamewar, I know that this topic is sensitive and >> there >> opinions are highly divided, please express your opinion calmly. The fact is, >> we can't ignore this anymore. >> >> Should this be discussed with board or council? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Best, >> Goffi >> >> _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
