Re: Change in IPR policies

Jay Daley <> Wed, 10 June 2020 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360B93A0DEB for <>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 19:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6smkVf4xumZ0; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 19:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 679E93A0DE9; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 19:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B81211C5-DF39-4D2A-9A15-BB1169C13680"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: Change in IPR policies
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 14:30:53 +1200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: ietf <>
To: John Scudder <>
References: <96A3BDFE6F7DC38D2366581F@PSB> <> <030e01d63e9f$9fcf3f50$df6dbdf0$> <> <032e01d63ea7$534b4270$f9e1c750$> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 02:30:57 -0000

> On 10/06/2020, at 12:39 PM, John Scudder <> wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 2020, at 6:32 PM, Jay Daley <> wrote:
>> Second, the consequence of getting it wrong could have been a large number of people abusing that and those who didn’t abuse it feeling very aggrieved at us for allowing that.
>> I welcome any further feedback.
> Thanks.

Thank you too for the helpful feedback.

> I’m not sure “avoidance of hurt feelings” is a great foundation to rest a policy change on, especially one that makes our organization less inclusive. It’s also a two-edged sword: you’re going to end up with people feeling aggrieved no matter what. Better hanged for a sheep than for a goat, sez I.
> For my part, I would feel aggrieved if the change in policy stood,

It’s not clear to me if you mean charging for 108, the clause prohibiting streaming (now withdrawn), or if the same policy were in place for a future online meeting?

> and resulted in our organization’s reach and effectiveness being diminished. I wouldn’t feel aggrieved if it were rescinded and then there were a lot of free riders. (I might think less well of the free riders, but by the nature of things it would be possible to know the names of participants who didn’t pay, and as for lurkers who didn’t pay, t’were ever thus.) $0.02.

As the decision to drop the audio stream was based on a misunderstanding, would reinstating that as a non-authenticated service compensate for that? 


> Regards,
> —John

Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director