--On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 08:42 +1200 Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > John > >> On 10/06/2020, at 7:50 AM, 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. > > The registration form at > https://registration.ietf.org/registration/108/new/remote/ > asks you to tick "I have read and understand the IETF Note > Well" - is that not what you were expecting or have I missed > something? That is not what I was expecting, but I also misremembered it. See my response to Scott. Again, that is the least of my worries. >> (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. > I need to check, but I think the intent there was to restrict > livestreaming and nothing else as the combination of live > streaming + open jabber rooms would effectively allow > participation without registration. Once I've reviewed I > will get that corrected. I think there are three separate concerns about this. One is Adrian's concern about WebEx (or Meetecho) and simultaneous sessions. The second is what this will actually restrict and why. If it is an attempt to prevent someone from registering and passing the livestreaming on to their friends or colleagues in real time to avoid registration fees, that seems very heavy-handed unless the IETF Administration LLC has decided that the main purpose of IETF meetings is revenue (that is very different, IMO, from charging for registrations). The third is how this decision got made, by whom (important so it can be appealed), and under what authority they claim allowed them to make it without community involvement or even advanced warning. I note that, given the traditions of people working together in the IETF with mutual respect that if the only purpose of that provision were to prevent secondary live streaming, it would have been sufficient to say "in order to preserve the revenue stream and general good order, we request that people not redistribute meeting audio or video before the official versions appear on YouTube". That would take care of almost anyone who might think about doing it and we could deal with others as we deal with people who behavior in seriously anti-social or unprofessional ways. No need for this sort of precedent-breaking, legal-sounding, prohibition. But, at least for me, that third issue is, by far, the most important. Again, how was this decision made, who made it (if you have to check, it apparently was not you, for which I'm grateful), and under what authority. thanks, john
