Hi Barry, On 4/4/16, 10:43, "ietf on behalf of Barry Leiba" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> So, one might argue that an AD can be unaware that a particular >>> document includes something that needs to be disclosed up to the >>> point that they take some action on that document, such as sponsoring it. >> >> Yes, but is that an issue? The AD is only required to disclose when >> she is "reasonably and personally aware" of the need for a disclosure, >> which will presumably become the case when she actually reads the draft >> (or sees the slides that describe the technology in question). > >Be careful here: I think it is an issue. > >The "reasonably and personally aware" applies to the IPR, not to the >participation. I think this is incorrect. According to section 5.1.2 (disclosure requirement based on Participation, not own IPR), a disclosure obligation exists if “the Participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover that Contribution”. I don’t think anyone could argue that an AD has a “believe” in a patent or application he/she is aware of Covers a Contribution when he has never seen the Contribution. >If I'm participating in active discussion about >Section 4 of document X, and I should be reasonably and personally >aware of IPR my employer holds with respect to Section 3 of document >X, we aren't going to happily accept that I didn't read Section 3 so I >don't have a responsibility to disclose. > >If we're saying that, say, ADs are considered to be Participants with >respect to every document and discussion in every working group in the >area -- and I see why some people think that's wise and appropriate -- >then we're saying that I have a responsibility to disclose whether or >not I've read the documents, and waiting until AD Evaluation state >would be a late disclosure. Consider that the working group might >have been proceeding for a couple of years and many I-D revisions >under the assumption that the technology is unencumbered... and then I >dump an IPR statement on them just as they've finished. A late disclosure is better than no disclosure, and, clearly, an AD has a much better justification of making such a late disclosure. I would hope that no one would complain if an AD makes a late disclosure and, when asked for the reason of lateness, he says “I was not responsible AD; I came across this during final review in IETF last call, and just identified this. “ In fact, people should appreciate this. Stephan > >This really is a tough one: it would be nice if the late disclosure >didn't happen, but ADs can't reasonably be expected to read every >draft in every working group early on... and, as others have said, it >would be very bad if this disclosure requirement gave us even fewer AD >candidates than we have now. > >Barry >