--On Friday, February 07, 2014 13:39 -0500 Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm concerned that any abbreviated form will inadequately > represent the nuances of the full policy, and that if we > create a single uniform abbreviated version that must be shown > at f2f meetings, that opens loopholes. For example, possibly: > "Well, yes I agreed to the Note Well, but then in the meeting > they showed a different version that didn't cover X. I thought > that took precedence." I think we are in violent agreement. That is precisely why I'm more in favor of a cautionary pointer to the actual rules than to any "abbreviated form" or "summary". If we are not in agreement, I'd really appreciate any hints that would improve my understanding. > There are many ways the full Note Well is dealt with at this > time, most of them good. I don't think you'll get more > attention paid to the IPR policy by showing an abbreviated > form. I think I agree but note that someone who "conforms to" the Note Well rather than the relevant BCPs is likely to either get themselves in trouble or discover loopholes that permit them to claim that they followed the rules as they understood them. The "full" Note Well is lots better in that regard than the proposed simplified replacements. But the reality is that any summary statements that go very far beyond "the IETF has IPR policies, they apply, or may apply, to you if any of these conditions (and maybe some others) are applicable, and, by sitting here and/or opening your mouth, you have agreed that you are bound by them and better understand what you are committed to" is likely to be problematic. What is notable about that sort of statement is that it does not try to explain, in summary, abbreviated, or other form, what those policies are. It just announces that there are policies, that they are binding on those who participate, and, preferably, provides a pointer. best, john