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