--On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 16:23 -0400 "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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) I am quite sure I have seen a clear announcement of a commitment to make all WG and Plenary sessions available on YouTube. If everything that is distributed at the meeting is going to be make available that way, I don't see any reason for this prohibition unless it is intended to prevent private recordings from "scooping" the "official" ones on YouTube. But that risk has existed for years, the problem has never occurred (or at least has never had any impact of which I'm aware) and I see nothing about this message or COVID-19-induced emergencies that would justify imposing it now without careful consideration. The precise statement, just copied from the main registration page at https://registration.ietf.org/registration/108/, reads "Recordings "All registrants are prohibited from distributing or broadcasting any electronic recordings of meeting events (including plenaries, tutorials, working group sessions, etc.) without IETF's prior written consent." Whether intended or not, if I join a "hallway" Jabber discussion, copy part of it, and distribute it to some colleagues, IANAL but that is almost certainly an "electronic recording" or a "meeting event". If only audio or video were intended, the prohibition should have said so. When one clicks "Register now" and "Online Full Week", one gets to https://registration.ietf.org/registration/108/new/remote/ A similar statement appears with the last "Policies" check box, that one reading: "I understand that I may not distribute or broadcast any electronic recordings of meeting events (including plenaries, tutorials, working group sessions, etc.) without IETF's prior written consent" Which, referring to Brian's comment about all of that being invalid without community consultation and a Trust announcement, reads to me as if one could, at least in principle, try to enforce such a rule based on "understanding" and agreement whether the policy itself were valid or not. Again, I hope someone consulted legal counsel about this. > 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 Yep. Also, "Policies" check box above that prohibition reads "I have read and understand the IETF Note Well" with "Note Well" as a hyperlink to https://ietf.org/about/note-well/ while that avoids the "agree to" language I thought I remembered (and is hence much better), I thought we were also cautioned to avoid links rather than display of the test because the latter takes us a bit too close to "you agree to the terms inside when you open the package" shrink-wrap licenses. I understood that to be the reason why registration procedures in the past actually displayed the Note Well text before one could advance to the page on which one put in, e.g., name and address information. But here we have a check box associated with the above text at the bottom of the page that collects registration information and just a link to the Note Well text. I don't know if it is new, but today's registration procedure also says "A Datatracker login is required to access online sessions. Use an email associated with your Datatracker account to register. If you do not already have a Datatracker account one will be created for you using this email." I don't see that as a major incremental privacy intrusion, but it seems to take us another step away from any ideas about anonymous observers or non-contributing Participants. best, john
