--On Sunday, 21 July, 2019 10:04 -0400 Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 10:02 AM John C Klensin > <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Colin, >> >> The problem is that, if ANSW is an IRTF group and/or it is >> using facilities that are supported in any way by the IETF >> (probably including such things as discounts on hotel or >> meeting rooms due to the IETF contract), you don't get to >> decide, any more than you get to decide that whatever rule >> Montreal has about public drunkenness don't apply. > > > John: Do you have a citation for this? It seems like if there > were a document that said, "A meeting that in any way using > facilities that are supported in any way by the IETF is > subject to the Note Well", that would be dispositive. And if > not, there's no obligation. No. And, if I did, I wouldn't post it on this list (nothing personal, just a long-standing aversion to getting involved in amateur lawyer debates). So, a final comment from me: BCP 78 and 79 are ultimately about a combination of some ethical principles that keep the IETF open and transparent and looking that way and some legal requirements. If some group, presumably for good reason, wants to declare themselves exempt from the first, fine with me as long as the decision is clear. As to the legal requirement, our enforcement provisions notwithstanding, if there is ever a real issue, it could easily end up in front of a judge. If the judge is convinced that rules that were intended to benefit the public have been interpreted in a way that favors some particular interests, it will often go badly for the hair-splitter. So, from a "protect the IETF" standpoint, I recommend against hair-splitting, arguing over interpretations or precedents, or encouraging any of those things. That is not to say someone can't get away with announcing that the Note Well (or BCP 78 and 79) doesn't apply, just that it might be risky, especially if the result of the other meeting results in a decision to do (or alter) standards-related work and someone later starts asking tough questions about just when disclosure was required. Looking ahead to Lar's note, same answer. of course, a company can hold private meetings with no one not associated with the company present. I'd hope that such meetings would be absolutely above suspicion, which is why I think the old rule was "different hotel or facility" but caution would suggest that, if they meet in the same hotel, they be able to demonstrate (should anyone ask or claim otherwise) that there was no IETF support for their meeting. I'd also hope that someone at every company that is sending people to the IETF, and especially ones that are holding on-site company strategy meetings, is concerned that opposing litigators might get very excited if IETF participants who attended those meetings then claimed that their participation in the IETF was strictly as individuals rather than on behalf of the company. Again, from my standpoint, that is just ordinary caution and a variation on Warren's "don't be a jerk" comment. If your attorney says something different, listen to her. Finally, I had understood that ANRW functioned as an IRTF RG in addition to the academic conference. That was apparently a misunderstanding (I saw Colin's note on that subject after sending mine) for which I apologize. _IF_ it were an RG, then I would stand my my statement that they don't get to decide. Given that it isn't, that statement isn't applicable. However, if that meeting is co-located in the same facilities and taking advantage of any IETF (or IETF LLC) resources, things are back in hair-splitting territory. They (and the IETF LLC) should make whatever decisions -- not just about the Note Well but about the nature of the boundary-- that make sense to them and their lawyers. I'll just be glad that, if something goes astray, I'm not the one who has any liability. best, john
