Re: Change in IPR policies

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 09 June 2020 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 83EDA3A0937; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 CdjbPGa8FL-n; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A6843A092F; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jim2M-00012b-Sk; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:44:02 -0400
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:43:56 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, adrian@olddog.co.uk
cc: trustees@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Change in IPR policies
Message-ID: <1900943C67CBE792ABDDD9EF@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <13080222-C9C3-44C6-B78C-AEE272639E51@ietf.org>
References: <96A3BDFE6F7DC38D2366581F@PSB> <45F719DA-115A-40C7-B96F-7F2D06E33199@ietf.org> <030e01d63e9f$9fcf3f50$df6dbdf0$@olddog.co.uk> <13080222-C9C3-44C6-B78C-AEE272639E51@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TWuQP7Oni6ILLfx2SwEMLd6X1X0>
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 21:44:07 -0000


--On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 08:59 +1200 Jay Daley
<jay@ietf.org> wrote:

>> - Does this mean that audio streaming will no longer happen?
>>   If so, I really (really, really) hope that Webex is going
>>   to let me join multiple simultaneous meetings so that I can
>>   easily skip in and out of the audio when I have an agenda
>>   clash. (I do also  wonder, in this case, how we support
>>   people with platforms  that can't run Webex in any of its
>>   forms.)
> 
> Audio streaming is not supported for the same reason that
> audio streaming + open jabber rooms effectively allows
> participation without registration.

Jay, I will make this quick and then shut up until you've had a
chance to do whatever checking is need and to get back to us on
"how, by whom, and on what authority" (and the implied "what is
the appeal path and to whom".  Inclusion of the policy in the
registration procedure is problematic even if it is promptly
withdrawn (although that would eliminate the need for an appeal).

I understand you are still learning, but "participant" (and
"participation"), like "contributor" (and "contribution") are
terms that have been used very carefully in discussions
involving IPR policies and may be key to Nomcom qualifications
and so on.  I have to get to another meeting so can't check (or
will trust Scott's memory) but I believe that both may be
defined in one or the other of BCP 78 and 79.  Please be careful
about using them.  As discussed in other threads, we have
typically tried to avoid those issues by making all materials
open and by distinguishing between participants and observers of
meeting streaming.   If the real purpose of eliminating
registration-free observing /watching of the live streams is,
like you just suggested about this policy, to preserve revenue
by preventing people who are inclined to behave badly from
getting a free ride (both my earlier comment about a "be nice"
statement and John Scudder's recent post apply here) then I
think we are really, really, on the wrong track, perhaps to the
point that the community should be calling on the LLC Board to
resign.

Just my opinion, of course.

    john