Re: Applying "Note Well" to side meetings

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

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.  If you want to be exempt, don't
co-locate or use IETF facilities and consult with the IAB, the
IETF LLC, and appropriate lawyers as to whether other measures
are appropriate.

Phill's comments about concealing the existence of patents
(pending or granted) in order to strengthen their position in
the marketplace would apply whether the IETF has its IPR rules
or not.

Long ago, almost certainly before IASA 1.0, the IETF had a
fairly firm rule about pre-organized side meetings which were
not part of the IETF process.  They were not allowed to use
_any_ IETF-provided or related resource or facilities.
Concurrent or co-located meetings were discouraged, cards
announcing such meetings were taken off announcement bulletin
boards, companies wanting to hold staff meeting or do recruiting
were told use a different hotel or other location, and so on.
Just "no".     I never asked, but assumed that was done on
advice of counsel because it kept the lines extremely clear.  If
it was, I can even guess at the name of the relevant lawyer.

Coming back to my response to Warren, I fear that we are
behaving in a way that encourages trying to draw fine lines and
hair-splitting.  I don't think that is good for the IETF
generally.   Given that some to the issues could involve acts
that are criminal in some locations and that courts might
disagree with how we split those hairs, I also hope that ADs,
IETF LLC Board members, and anyone similarly situated how gotten
advice from their lawyers about potential risks.

(my last posting on this thread before I get to Montreal)

best,
  john

--On Sunday, 21 July, 2019 09:36 -0400 Colin Perkins
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> The ANRW is an academic workshop that happens to be co-located
> with IETF. We made an explicit decision when starting the
> workshop, several years ago now, that the Note Well does not
> apply to it. 
> 
> If work is brought from ANRW into either an IRTF RG or an IETF
> WG, then the Note Well would apply, of course.
> 
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
>> On 21 Jul 2019, at 08:08, Scott O. Bradner <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> ps - I see that ANRW is an IRTF research group - thus
>> https://irtf.org/ipr applies  (and that says that the IETF
>> rules apply)
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 21, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Scott O. Bradner
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I am
>>> speaking as a person who ran the BOF where the specific text
>>> "intended to affect the IETF Standards Process" was
>>> developed and agreed to as well as a person who  edited the
>>> specific text - it is my opinion that the BOF (and thus the
>>> IETF) intended the rules to apply wherever actions are taken
>>> or text developed that are "intended to affect the IETF
>>> Standards Process"  in particular, IPR disclosure is
>>> required if known
>>> 
>>> I have no opinion as to the facts of the specific case of
>>> ANRW since I have not been following that
>>> 
>>> Scott
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 21, 2019, at 7:42 AM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Scott, I think you may be over-stating things a bit.  The
>>>> IETF doesn't get to make universal statements that apply to
>>>> things out of its remit.  For example, there are numerous
>>>> research conferences that are held on IETF-related
>>>> technologies -- often with a specific focus on providing
>>>> helpful input to IETF! -- which are not held under note
>>>> well.
>>>> 
>>>> The location of such meetings alongside IETF meetings does
>>>> not change this fact.  AFAICT, ANRW is not covered by Note
>>>> Well, despite having the explicit goal of "transition[ing]
>>>> research back into IETF".
>>>> 
>>>> The definition of Contribution in 8179 makes this clear
>>>> from the start:
>>>> 
>>>> """
>>>> "Contribution": any submission to the IETF ...
>>>> """
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 7:27 AM Adrian Farrel
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote: Thanks Scott, that's helpful.
>>>> A
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Scott O. Bradner <[e-mail]> 
>>>> Sent: 21 July 2019 11:24
>>>> To: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail]>
>>>> Subject: Re: Applying "Note Well" to side meetings
>>>> 
>>>> speaking as co-editor of the ruleset
>>>> 
>>>> see the definition of "Contribution" in RFC 8179
>>>> 
>>>> basically, the "note well" applies whenever activities
>>>> that are "intended to  affect the IETF Standards Process"
>>>> may happen
>>>> 
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 20, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Adrian Farrel
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Normally [1] when we have a "bar BoF" (also known as a
>>>>> "side meeting") we do not apply the terms of the "Note
>>>>> Well" [2]. We have usually considered bar BoFs to be
>>>>> outside the IETF because the IETF has no control over who
>>>>> meets and drinks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, this time around, the side meetings are somewhat
>>>>> more formal with room bookings and projectors and
>>>>> advertisements and so on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, does the Note Well apply to these side meetings?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apologies if I missed an email on this: I sometimes don't
>>>>> focus as much as I should.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Adrian
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] For some practical definition of "normal"
>>>>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/
>>>>> --
>>>>> Read some fairy stories for adults of all ages
>>>>> .. Tales from the Wood
>>>>> .. More Tales from the Wood
>>>>> .. Tales from Beyond the Wood
>>>>> .. Tales from the Castle
>>>>> Get them on line https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
>>>>> Or buy a signed copy from me by post
>>>>> *** Stop me in the corridor at IETF-105 to get a copy ***
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>