Re: [Gen-art] Note Well applicability to bar BOFs

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Jorge,

related to the ID on side meetings during the IETF week, during the gen-art review of this draft, Ben had the following question, and Spencer followed it up:

Ben said:
> -- Section 6 suggests side meetings should be (somehow "informally") covered by NOTE WELL. I think this is a very dangerous suggestion. The rest of the document suggests that a side meeting has no official standing. That seems to me to mean it's no different than a group of people who coincidentally participate in the IETF having a dinner or bar meeting on any subject at any time. Or a hallway conversation, for that matter. By the logic of this section, I can't really figure out how "informal" a meeting would need to be before it no longer fell under NOTE WELL.
> 
> In an informal meeting, the participants should be able to follow any IPR policy they like. I can even imagine an informal meeting covered by an NDA, where the participants want to decide if they want to have further discussions of a subject under IETSF IPR rules or not.
> 
> I think the best we can hope to do is suggest that side meeting organizers and participants be explicit with their expectations on IPR and confidentiality, so there is less chance for down-stream surprises. If we want something stronger than that, then we really need to create a new category of "official" meeting.

Spencer said:
> For what it's worth, I have the same question as Ben - if this guidance applies to the kinds of informal meetings in restaurants and bars that the IESG is encouraging, even if they aren't publicized and aren't open to the community, is there any way for two or more IETF participants to talk to each other, that's NOT under NOTE WELL?
> 
> I think it DOES make sense to say that the kinds of informal meetings the IESG is discouraging - in IETF meeting rooms, with agendas, mailing lists, presentations, attendee lists, and minutes - should include NOTE WELL notifications.
> 
> But if I was sitting next to Adam Roach on a plane headed for the IETF (which has happened before) when he was editor of GIN and I was chair of MARTINI (this last part did not), and we started talking about proposed changes to the GIN draft, is that covered?

Could you propose a rephrasing of the original text (see below) that would clarify the issues they have raised?

Thanks,
Lars


On 2011-2-28, at 19:33, Jorge Contreras wrote:
> Gonzalo -- thanks for the document context.  Here's my suggestion for
> Section 6:
> 
> "6.  Applicability of IPR Rules
> 
> The IETF's rules regarding intellectual property are set out in BCP 78 and
> 79.  Among other things, these rules provide that any "Contribution" to the
> "IETF Standards Process" (each as defined in the rules themselves) is
> licensed to the IETF Trust for the IETF's use in developing standards, and
> also requires disclosure of related patents and patent applications.  A
> "Contribution" is "any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor
> for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement
> made within the context of an IETF activity".  Thus, the fact that a
> Contribution is made at one of the BOFs or other "unofficial" or
> "semi-official" events described in this document does not change or limit
> the applicability of the IETF's IPR rules.   If you have a question
> regarding the applicability of the IETF IPR rules in any specific context or
> to any specific activity, you should consult your attorney or make an
> inquiry to the IESG."
> 
> Regards,
> Jorge