Re: [93attendees] Network experiment during the meeting

Benson Schliesser <> Wed, 15 July 2015 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193A71B3223 for <>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OSm9KgVqMRrO for <>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D11301B3220 for <>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iggp10 with SMTP id p10so126460542igg.0 for <>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=m3gvolC4KwU2BlnPlnDx0DiQQ+mvSaGZh+ZIY351nlA=; b=PMyYO83626oHi+9jdF/B494MKQklU4/UuMRuDt/jdjTjgyWMGsqdfaBhvKNujAb0f2 BepJzORwYqeqmPFrylZHOhdHHnQeMW83h9HzO+4i8nP841EuCZNGgMoPxU52aSLgIpJm mUxc5zpSzpGZBSIKV9WF0KfXcla9IdljX/8nGcyejRNruRBIx3n2NfXnqeeTO3/D4NwH p67q5Ck0m1dl5GLT5UsEOEFemR6zp/g3P4L2mfBFyAIY6y712+pSt1y5sQAt82/YnMtd 0EVS6eZUVcC9tmJsp7KSiJ9aEglneGyU23i15NEebK56KaBojDn9ST+sbp6YC6HtA1jo 2MKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQka8JCR+TFR1KE8lParPiiGvP+YeGkJXWPlLE7zU1QcbsVQqoVk64sxd4pwSyKWzYD/Z4TH
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id g7mr11975565igt.22.1436981066237; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:24:26 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Benson Schliesser <>
To: Toerless Eckert <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdca61a00a81d051aed3abc
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Stephen Botzko <>, Jared Mauch <>
Subject: Re: [93attendees] Network experiment during the meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 93 attendees that have opted in on this list. " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:24:44 -0000

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015, Toerless Eckert <> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:56:35PM -0400, Stephen Botzko wrote:
> > There is *nothing* in the Note Well (nor in the RFCs it references) about
> > indemnification.
> Sure, but the note well does not explain why the IETF does it, and
> why it has attendees accept it.
> s/idemnify/protect/ ?
Speaking only as an individual, with my personal understanding, and
foremost noting that I am not a lawyer:

The "Note Well" statement tells participants that what they publicly say,
write, sing and dance, etc in an IETF venue is considered a contribution to
the IETF. This has some legal implications, including that the IETF has the
right to publish those contributions. This is very much about copyrights,
licensing, etc. The Note Well does not make any statements about

Whether the meaning of the Note Well and it's implications are beneficial
or detrimental to any particular person or organization is an exercise left
up to the individuals that contribute and/or make use of contributions. In
my view, that very much depends on the specific circumstances. The IETF
rules certainly don't take the place of IPR law, legal disputes, and all of
that. That being said, if we are all "playing fair" with each other then it
should encourage collaboration.

Finally, as is typical in these kinds of things, it is often prudent to
check with legal counsel if one has questions. Of course, the process of
"checking with legal" is usually fraught with its own costs (financial and
otherwise) and is therefore a choice best made by the individuals involved.