Re: Proposed Update to Note Well

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Noel,

"Affiliate" is overly broad, and undefined and therefore not
supported by BCP79.  It cannot be reasonably expected of an IETF
participant to have an objective view of with whom he/she is affiliated.

One (the most?) common definition of "affiliate" used in contracts
results in a sweep in of any corporate entity that is controlled,
or controls, another entity, including individuals.  Recursively.
As there is no definition of "affiliate" in BCP79, we have to assume
such a common definition.

Now, I'm affiliated with IEEE, and so is John Doe, who controls a
patent of which I believe it may be necessary to practice a draft.
I happen to be aware of John Doe's patent because John Doe is a former
colleague of mine, but other than that, and our IEEE memberships, there
Is no other connection between John Doe and myself.  I surely
do not have an disclosure obligation based on our joint affiliation
with IEEE?

Using affiliate would IMO be a policy change through the back door.

I would rather strongly suggest to stick with vocabulary available in
BCP79.
The formulation used in BCP79 is "employer or sponsor".  Wordcount +=2  :-(

Stephan

On 6.22.2012 08:12 , "Peter Saint-Andre" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 6/22/12 8:45 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> On 6.22.2012 07:14 , "Peter Saint-Andre" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    Anything that you write, say, or discuss in the IETF, formally or
>>    informally, either at an IETF meeting or in another IETF venue
>>    such as a mailing list, is an IETF contribution.  If you believe that
>>    any contribution of yours is covered by a patent or patent
>>    application made by you or your employer, you must disclose
>>    that fact or arrange for your employer to disclose it on your behalf.
>> 
>> 
>> s/made by you or your employer/controlled by you or your employer/
>> 
>> And I would remove "on your behalf", as it a) adds to the word count,
>>and
>> b) could be viewed as a requirement to fill in the section III of the
>> disclosure form--something that is neither common practice nor, IMO,
>>overly
>> useful.
>
>You're right on both counts. So (and addressing Randy's concern):
>
>   Anything that you write, say, or discuss in the IETF, formally or
>   informally, either at an IETF meeting or in another IETF venue
>   such as a mailing list, is an IETF contribution.  If you believe
>   that any contribution of yours is covered by a patent or patent
>   application controlled by you or an organization with which you
>   are affiliated, you must disclose it or arrange for that
>   organization to disclose it.
>
>Peter
>
>-- 
>Peter Saint-Andre
>https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>
>
>