Stephan: Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the responsibilities to participants. Russ On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > Hi, > Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it necessary to tinker with > the Note Well? > As for the substance, I don't like the text for two reasons that can be > found inline. > Stephan > > On 11.6.2012 10:00 , "IETF Chair" <chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review >> and comment. >> >> Russ >> >> >> >> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === >> >> Note Well >> >> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and >> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in >> BCP 79; please read it carefully. >> >> The brief summary: >> - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. >> - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, >> say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent >> applications, you need to disclose that fact. > > 1) I'm not in favor of this formulation because it can be read to impose a > stronger disclosure obligation on a participant than BCP 79. > Specifically, as Lars has already pointed out and according to BCP 79, I'm > not "needed" to disclose a patent I'm reasonably and personally aware of > that reads on a document of mine, if that patent is assigned to someone > else but myself and my sponsor/employer, ... For good reasons, BCP 79 does > not require third party disclosures. I hope that the (few) added words > can be accommodated. > 2) On the other hand, the issue of timeliness is not covered at all (as > others have already pointed out.) > > I'm especially worried of point 1, which can be seen as a policy change > through the back door. If, based on this hypothetical Note Well, we would > end up with an IETF disclosure culture in which third party disclosures > would become the norm rather than an exception, we could well end up with > a brain drain especially from folks not quite as senior in their > respective company hierarchy to have the leeway to ignore company guidance > about patents. > > >> - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and >> publicly archived. >> >> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or >> review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the >> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on >> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF). > >