On Tue, 28 May 2002, Melinda Shore wrote: > At 02:58 PM 5/28/02 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote: > >Again, I'm not going to object to using meeting time for this kind of > >session if that's what's needed. But other than Harald's message, I > >have not heard anything about this since Minneapolis and have not heard > >folks clamoring for such a meeting. Heck, we haven't seen a proposed > >agenda for a meeting let alone an I-D. How was it decided that everyone > >would obviously want to go and that therefore a separate session was > >needed? > > I'd like to see a session on IPR that doesn't conflict with other > meetings. It would be endlessly great if it could be declared mandatory > :-). IPR is increasingly a huge nuisance, and because the current > policy is less than completely clear there's a lot of confusion about it > when it comes up. Although this may not be a problem (until the lawyers > show up) there's not a lot of consistency among working groups. I think that would be very useful if a couple of lawyers showed up in an IPR session, listened to the comments and warned us for things that are illegal or not legally implementable. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)