Re: Applying "Note Well" to side meetings

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Sunday, 21 July, 2019 10:04 -0400 Richard Barnes
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 10:02 AM John C Klensin
> <[e-mail]> 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