Hi John and Mike, On 4/13/16, 11:32, "ietf on behalf of Michael Cameron" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of michael.cameron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >[...] >I'lI try to respond to some of your other points in a later post, but one thing stood out that I'd like to address right away. I disagree that sitting passively in a meeting and not humming could constitute "actively seeking to influence the outcome..." The Orlando IPRbis meeting report can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-iprbis The relevant section is this: " SENSE OF THE ROOM Russ Housley: Let's take a sense of the room on this topic. Is acting in order to influence the outcome of the discussion, and not listening or watching the action of others? That includes show of hands, writing, humming, and so on. Strong sense of the room that active influence counts as participation, but listening and watching does not. “ I at least found the outcome of the discussion sensible then, and appropriately represented in 3979bis-08 now. Tourism is allowed. Sitting in the room (or on a mailing list for that matter), listing quietly, with good or ill intentions, is allowed. Physical presence in the room (or subscription to a mailing list) does not constitute Participation. We live with the risk of speculative patent application filings, and with people owning essential IPR being quiet and keep the IPR secret when they feel that others do enough to include their IPR in a forthcoming RFC, and so on--all that in the name of openness, inclusiveness (including inclusiveness to newcomers on to the IETF, or the subject matter of the WG), cross fertilization and so on. We do not want closed rooms and closed mailing lists. The undeniable risk, and the cost associated with this, we are willing to pay. Stephan > >Best, Mike > > > >