RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Mike,
At 10:33 12-04-2016, Michael Cameron wrote:
My response:

We need to be careful not to place on Area Directors unreasonable burdens and obligations. Further, there needs to be certainty as to what the obligations are. The obligations imposed on Area Directors to declare known IPR should be limited to those activities in which they actively participate. I'll defer to the ADs, but I would think that an AD acting on a recommendation or advice from a WG as to how to proceed on a Specification, without more, does not necessarily rise to the level of active participation.

From what I read, the duty to disclose in the U.S. "does not extend to typists, clerks, and similar personnel".

There is the following text in Standards Track RFCs: "It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)".

In the last sentence of the text quoted above there is the following: "I'll defer to the ADs". Would a reasonable person conclude that an IETF participant with a good understanding of the IETF "Note Well" defer to a typist on a matter which is important? Furthermore, would an Area Director describe his/her work as being similar to a clerk in his/her biography?

Does the fact that an Area Director has the authority to share the responsibility for the approval of a Standards Track RFC constitute "active participation"?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]