--On Friday, February 07, 2014 11:28 -0600 Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/7/14 2:05 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: >> I'll again point to the IRTF statement, which >> does:http://irtf.org/ipr. We'll make it available to the IETF >> for the low, low price of a round of beers for the IRSG:-) >> > > FWIW, I like the IRTF statement and think it would be a fine > addition/replacement *for what's on the web site*. It's not > short enough IMO for the face-to-face in-room reminder, > particularly if a chair were going to actually *say* it, but > maybe if something of this nature appeared on the web site, > the in-room reminder wouldn't be as necessary. Pete, As others have suggested, if you want to raise a "please pay attention to things you have presumably read" flag in meetings and especially if you think the current version is too long or complicated, just do that with one of many versions of the "if you or your organization have IPR in this topic you had best either understand the BCP provisions or leave" statement, with or without a second "if know of someone else's, you should be paying attention to the BCPs too" remark. Don't try to summarize. You can't get it right in a sentence or four and will just create risks without improving understanding or, most likely, compliance. > (And to answer an earlier question, yes, we've had a bunch of > late disclosures. They seem to come in waves. >... Let me then suggest a small bit of research. You know who the responsible parties are. Have you asked them whether additional notices would have made any difference and, if so, of what sort and where? Obviously some will be unwilling (or unable) to respond accurately. But it would be nice to have at least a shred of evidence that more investment in fine-tuning announcements would actually improve the rate of timely disclosures. In addition, there is a more interesting question than "have their been late disclosures". It is "how many of the late disclosures were defended on the basis of ignorance about the rules?". If the number of those is non-zero, it would also be interesting to know whether (and how often) that claim has been made under oath in an actual proceeding rather than informal remarks to the IESG. Unless there have been serious claims that the reason for non-disclosure is ignorance of the rules or our failure to have enough notices, I'm not sure what problem you are trying to solve that is important enough to justify the costs of this discussion. best, john