relative to John’s point #2 does this mean that the IETF will not be making the session recordings openly available? - there seems to be no reason for a distribution prohibition otherwise (for example see https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/proceedings - it list the audio & video recordings) if so, that would, as John points out, would be a rather big change and I did not see any discussion of any proposal to make such a change - can you point me to the archive of the discussion - thanks Scott > On Jun 9, 2020, at 3:50 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi. > > I was just reminded that, when I registered for IETF 108, I > noticed that I was asked to agree to two things that seemed new. > The first is probably unimportant but IANAL and it is still a > change. The second seems problematic. > > (1) If I recall (I was tired and might easily have been > confused), the language about the Note Well statement has > changed to require agreement to the statement itself, not just > that it was read and understood. If so, I hope the new language > was cleared with counsel because I believe we were warned in the > past that we should treat that statement simply as a collection > of pointers, not an authority in itself. That is the reason > why, e.g., we reference specific RFCs or BCPs in I-Ds and RFC > boilerplate rather than pointing to the Note Well. > > (2) There is a very specific and, as far as I know, completely > new, prohibition against distribution or broadcasting of any > meeting-related discussion or events. That seems like a giant > step away from the IETF's tradition of openness and free > availability of materials. It also may run counter to existing > principles and rules, including the provisions about reuse of > Contributions for IETF purposes that appear in BCP 78. In > addition to the general principle that we do not try to restrict > access to, reuse of, or reproduction of, our materials (as long > as they are reproduced intact), there are at least two > interesting operational edge-case questions about what the > requirement means. As examples, > > (1) Suppose that, as part of a presentation, I read sections of > an Internet-Draft that I wrote. Now, normally, the content of > an I-D is a Contribution to the IETF but one for which the > author(s) etain full rights to reuse the content for other > purposes. By reading those sections aloud, do I forfeit the > right to distribute and broadcast them? > > (2) Perhaps I read from a published RFC, for example RFCs 2026 > or 5378. Does that make it a requirement that whomever hears me > read it must then ask the IETF's permission before quoting from > it in a way that would constitute "distribution". > > (3) Suppose I record a session for my personal use and then > discover what appears to be a discrepancy between what was said > at the meeting. Am I allowed to quote from my recording on the > relevant mailing list to dispute the account in the minutes? > Or, if there is a later decision made based in part of what was > said at the meeting, am I allowed to include part of that > recording in an appeal? > > Those examples are (I hope) silly individually, but they are > consistent with the "no distribution or broadcasting" provision. > > As important and in the context of other recent discussions, who > approved that restriction? Were the Trustees of the IETF Trust > and their legal advisors involved and, if not, why not? If they > were, should we expect a discussion in their April or May 2020 > minutes (which are now significantly late)? > > And, because it appears to be a very significant change from > IETF principles and history, when was the community consulted > about this and where is its consensus documented? I hope no > one is going to claim that it was necessary on an emergency > basis to protect the revenue stream from registrations because > that claim could have been made at any time in the past (and I > can't be the only one who has recorded all or part of IETF > meeting WG or Plenary sessions and then shared them). > > best, > john > >
