On Sep 9, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> -- Section 6 suggests side meetings should be (somehow "informally") covered
>> by NOTE WELL. I think this is a very dangerous suggestion. The rest of the
>> document suggests that a side meeting has no official standing. That seems to
>> me to mean it's no different than a group of people who coincidentally participate
>> in the IETF having a dinner or bar meeting on any subject at any time. Or a hallway
>> conversation, for that matter. By the logic of this section, I can't really figure out how
>> "informal" a meeting would need to be before it no longer fell under NOTE WELL.
>
> This is truly a tricky point. Often, organizers of these "bar BoFs"
> make great effort to get an AD involved and attending, make it clear
> that they're having this because their BoF proposal got in too late or
> was denied, and/or talk about a proposed WG charter. These side
> meetings are often advertised during open area meetings and other
> working-group sessions, and everyone is encouraged to attend.
It seems like this draft discourages that sort of meeting in the first place, doesn't it?
>
> In the first case, Note Well explicitly covers this ("The IESG, or any
> member thereof on behalf of the IESG"); in the others, it does seem
> like input to the IETF ("any statement made within the context of an
> IETF activity"), if not unequivocally so, and it's certainly not
> explicitly excluded ("Statements made outside of an IETF session,
> mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be
> input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF
> Contributions in the context of this notice.")
>
> I'd like to hear from Jorge on this, but my spider sense says that if
> a meeting occurs during an IETF week, is open to all, and clearly
> relates to current or proposed work for the IETF, the people who go
> have a reasonable expectation of Note Well terms.
That does sound like something, that, by default falls into the "semi-official" language. But this draft encourages meetings that are not widely advertised, and open only to key participants. That likely means invitation only. That is. more on the "unofficial" side of the language. That's the part that triggers my concern.
>
>> I think the best we can hope to do is suggest that side meeting organizers
>> and participants be explicit with their expectations on IPR and confidentiality,
>> so there is less chance for down-stream surprises.
>
> I think that's an excellent approach. May I suggest some text?:
>
> OLD
> Thus, the fact that a Contribution is made at one of the side
> meetings or other "unofficial" or "semi-official" events described in
> this document does not change or limit the applicability of the
> IETF's IPR rules. If you have a question regarding the applicability
> of the IETF IPR rules in any specific context or to any specific
> activity, you should consult your attorney or make an inquiry to the
> IESG.
>
> Informally, the above makes it appropriate, in order to provide a
> pointer to the relevant policies, to announce the "Note Well" text
> [NOTEWELL] in all such meetings.
>
> NEW
> Thus, a Contribution that is made at one of the side
> meetings or other "unofficial" or "semi-official" events described in
> this document could still be under the applicability of the
> IETF's IPR rules. If you have a question regarding the applicability
> of the IETF IPR rules in any specific context or to any specific
> activity, you should consult your attorney or make an inquiry to the
> IESG.
>
> If a meeting occurs during an IETF week, is open to all, and clearly
> relates to current or proposed work for the IETF, those who attend
> will have a reasonable expectation that the IETF's rules apply.
> The organizers of these meetings are, therefore, strongly encouraged
> to make an explicit statement at the beginning of the meetings to
> announce whether or not they do apply (by using the "Note Well" text
> [NOTEWELL]). If they do not apply, the announcement should
> specify what confidentiality and IPR terms are in effect. In the absence
> of such a statement, attendees are encouraged to explicitly ask.
I like your proposed language better than the original, although I wonder if the IESG wants to be in the business of giving advice about IPR status. But I guess it all depends on the advice from counsel. I don't want to speculate on the nature of said advice--but I guess I'm looking for a way that someone could explicitly choose to have a meeting where Note Well did not apply. Otherwise we are likely to end up with yet another category of meetings, which look pretty much like side meetings except for the IPR rules.
>
> --
> Barry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf