Re: [Trustees] Change in IPR policies

Brad Biddle <brad@biddle.law> Tue, 09 June 2020 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <brad@biddle.law>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981C33A0829 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=biddle-law.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53diXXWVMFgo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x335.google.com (mail-ot1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F5353A0D50 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x335.google.com with SMTP id e5so154948ote.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=biddle-law.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rpzJIktpQCHNimG6nHdkPP8RkEW/PFrBRxHcfKfkcv8=; b=UbfY55jvyWcrj0hz3dcZJYqzDx3DFzF3AK0ZBlceVIv1jx5zTavzM6jd0aaKciblXC iB/aM9GVp958w7kv0AMod+uSmd2bjK6pLY68/3liWythQkviqv2ZlilGiFx1ZBmsJ6x2 yRwyCPJ3k2HWPGCSv9D/MBd3vpQAakv3lKxnAN/VTdfW63aq8OLmXthu7BSO6b3x9glQ HQYqidsMJYSZZR50chSo/Bfx/CWDNZoTkCTbNYgqxUjiUNoRy8uprStQnLiWV+4v03f3 HbhK0FHeBFQ2HNkJ4P+v2a38/ZrilOlMg3qTHOAbebXiijZwWryyP+r0c6JTtisRsPOx wPHw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rpzJIktpQCHNimG6nHdkPP8RkEW/PFrBRxHcfKfkcv8=; b=fAV5JAtZReWa4+5H4QeDkiRCjHqWwQS6B+g9MRYb6mb/LF7o5y+72d3ZQQAOKMUtiK fZr0Ml0/BA+x/Is9TcNLutU/iUDIVu38PJFECzh1kZuQI+iE2JfV9HuFSU3/VhpHMyAC y2nS+k/qcqkF7qB6h+lU8nGX8fC8XIBh39P10xD8W2pK8VnnLXDXt6ujiwU7XjDTdQVB MrgtVAvg6phw6lDWnQ2tQoGYpT860dyilfAoLCU6PgqmKFy541ogS9pK00U1rLWvqm/x swjKbQQR9rdtAZDelT0wKZT38dd0AGJ8LatJw+AjsqcPdO9VpwbYL+QwGESKLk7fFAi+ hiWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531EwIZ+4A5SMMKLVQWdE+yg7mpZqIs1bKXH2no8soPjvSeBsL2/ g3isfhWMFjfEKXzHMiSHmt2cDO409JPacURf6/Q7mg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyvtG6SMDJJhlIhuhqN2MKes+SJ8KXDkpen/0mAIcrpmaR7ZZ5ilrMfsqmK4bKOvSfFtgZuXoP9e9ljgT8Q7Og=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6c88:: with SMTP id c8mr350621otr.59.1591742707983; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <96A3BDFE6F7DC38D2366581F@PSB> <45F719DA-115A-40C7-B96F-7F2D06E33199@ietf.org> <030e01d63e9f$9fcf3f50$df6dbdf0$@olddog.co.uk> <13080222-C9C3-44C6-B78C-AEE272639E51@ietf.org> <032e01d63ea7$534b4270$f9e1c750$@olddog.co.uk> <859539A9-ACD2-4E69-8657-7D4A7FE899B6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <859539A9-ACD2-4E69-8657-7D4A7FE899B6@ietf.org>
From: Brad Biddle <brad@biddle.law>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:44:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPdOjkhW-6WO1fzV3iO0ikGSSL3H-k1eUKZ0hRRApHMRwS6cWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Trustees] Change in IPR policies
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, Trustees <trustees@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aef2e605a7ae7a8a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4OVr3l89fY0xq2ay-Khyhne-0Zc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 22:45:29 -0000

Let me add an apology from the legal side. We provided fairly generic
language we've used in other contexts without carefully considering the
unique culture, technical circumstances and IPR dynamics of the IETF. We'll
be more mindful of this going forward.

--Brad
(IETF counsel)
-- 
Brad Biddle | brad@biddle.law | +1.503.502.1259 (mobile) | http://biddle.law

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:32 PM Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> wrote:

> I have reviewed the checkbox presented during registration that says "I
> understand that I may not distribute or broadcast any electronic recordings
> of meeting events (including plenaries, tutorials, working group sessions,
> etc.) without IETF’s prior written consent" and this checkbox will now be
> removed.
>
> I want to apologise first for the overly broad scope of that statement,
> which is on me for not reviewing it before it went up, and second for not
> recognising the impact of this on the general IPR policy.  While the former
> issue may be fixable, the latter is not and so the checkbox needs to go.
>
> As explained, the original intent was to prohibit livestreaming, which in
> combination with open jabber rooms would enable people to participate in
> sessions without registration.  The concern there was not to protect the
> income stream from the meeting, but to ensure that we respect and recognise
> the decision of those people who register and pay by not allowing an
> obvious backdoor that avoids that.
>
> The decision about the audio stream was slightly different.  I mistakenly
> thought that this was discontinued a while ago and so took the decision not
> to turn it back on just for this meeting.  I would prefer to stick with
> that decision given that Meetecho allows people to watch/list to multiple
> streams at once and the concerns I’ve expressed above.
>
> I understand the view that we should be using an honor system and seeing
> if that fails us first, and that was considered but the risk of doing that
> was seen as too great.  First, I think we all recognise now that the honor
> system is much less effective online than in-person for a variety of
> reasons including low barriers, limited repercussions and effective
> anonymity, and so the likelihood of the honor system working is much less
> than in-person.  Second, the consequence of getting it wrong could have
> been a large number of people abusing that and those who didn’t abuse it
> feeling very aggrieved at us for allowing that.
>
> I welcome any further feedback.
>
> Jay
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> jay@ietf.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trustees mailing list
> Trustees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees
>


<http://biddle.law>