>>> but I guess I'm looking for a way that someone could >>> explicitly choose to have a meeting where Note Well did not >>> apply. > > I think I disagree. I don't know what a decision to "Not apply > the Note Well" or, more specifically, to exempt oneself from the > disclosure requirements of RFC 3979, 4879, and 5378, means and, > especially wrt the disclosure requirements, if I do understand, > I don't like it. I suspect we're more in agreement than not. Any group that wants to hold a meeting that's during the IETF week seems free to do this under whatever rules they like. The IETF can apply its rules when it's asked to get involved. So if we want to say that, for example, any of the following things can only happen if the meeting is covered by BCP 78, then we can certainly say that: * IETF leadership is asked to get involved. * IETF meeting rooms are used. * The organizers want to announce the side meeting in an IETF session. But, realistically, we can't demand that a group of organizers abide by BCP 78 just because they hold a meeting during the IETF week and don't put bouncers at the door barring entry to the uninvited. If they want to spread the word by mouth and get 100 people there on Wednesday evening in the lobby lounge or in a private room at a local restaurant, I don't see that we can tell them what to do. But we can, and should, make them aware of what people's expectations will be, urge them to apply BCP 78, urge them to announce whatever rules they are applying, and urge those who might attend to hold them to such disclosure (and perhaps vote with their feet if they don't like the terms). And that's what I think Ben and I are saying. Of course, this is all from people who are not part of the IETF's legal counsel, and said counsel certainly has the real say in this. I would like to see them weigh in publicly, to eliminate speculation from us dilettantes. Barry _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf