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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Alissa,
On 01/04/2016 11:38, Alissa Cooper wrote:
...
> 1) I agree with other commenters' concerns about the definition of "participating" with respect to WG chairs and ADs. In particular in the context of section 6, this seems like it could limit the pool of people who can stand for AD roles, because you're not allowed to participate in cases where you won't be able to disclose, but you have no idea a priori what WGs will get chartered in your area and what work items they might take up.

I don't see what's new about this - it's always been an awkward point. I worked for
a major patent-generating company while I was in the IESG ten years ago, and I had
to pay attention to this. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but I don't see that
tightening up the language really makes the problem any worse. (However, I still
don't see any need to state the obvious, i.e. that WG Chairs and ADs are
participants, unless they recuse themselves on a particular matter.)

    Brian