RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,
At 10:33 12-04-2016, Michael Cameron wrote:
>My response:
>
>We need to be careful not to place on Area Directors unreasonable 
>burdens and obligations.  Further, there needs to be certainty as to 
>what the obligations are.   The obligations imposed on Area 
>Directors to declare known IPR should be limited to those activities 
>in which they actively participate.  I'll defer to the ADs, but I 
>would think that an AD acting on a recommendation or advice from a 
>WG as to how to proceed on a Specification, without more, does not 
>necessarily rise to the level of active participation.

 From what I read, the duty to disclose in the U.S. "does not extend 
to typists, clerks, and similar personnel".

There is the following text in Standards Track RFCs: "It has received 
public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet 
Engineering Steering Group (IESG)".

In the last sentence of the text quoted above there is the following: 
"I'll defer to the ADs".  Would a reasonable person conclude that an 
IETF participant with a good understanding of the IETF "Note Well" 
defer to a typist on a matter which is important?  Furthermore, would 
an Area Director describe his/her work as being similar to a clerk in 
his/her biography?

Does the fact that an Area Director has the authority to share the 
responsibility for the approval of a Standards Track RFC constitute 
"active participation"?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy