Re: Change in IPR policies

Jay Daley <> Tue, 09 June 2020 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1813A084D; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u-43m3DSJMLu; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:42:33 -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 CC9A23A084B; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: Change in IPR policies
From: Jay Daley <>
In-Reply-To: <96A3BDFE6F7DC38D2366581F@PSB>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:42:30 +1200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <96A3BDFE6F7DC38D2366581F@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <>
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: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 20:42:35 -0000


> On 10/06/2020, at 7:50 AM, John C Klensin <> wrote:
> Hi.
> I was just reminded that, when I registered for IETF 108, I
> noticed that I was asked to agree to two things that seemed new.
> The first is probably unimportant but IANAL and it is still a
> change.  The second seems problematic.
> (1) If I recall (I was tired and might easily have been
> confused), the language about the Note Well statement has
> changed to require agreement to the statement itself, not just
> that it was read and understood.  If so, I hope the new language
> was cleared with counsel because I believe we were warned in the
> past that we should treat that statement simply as a collection
> of pointers, not an authority in itself.  That is the reason
> why, e.g., we reference specific RFCs or BCPs in I-Ds and RFC
> boilerplate rather than pointing to the Note Well.

The registration form at asks you to tick "I have read and understand the IETF Note Well" - is that not what you were expecting or have I missed something?

> (2) There is a very specific and, as far as I know, completely
> new, prohibition against distribution or broadcasting of any
> meeting-related discussion or events.  That seems like a giant
> step away from the IETF's tradition of openness and free
> availability of materials.

I need to check, but I think the intent there was to restrict livestreaming and nothing else as the combination of live streaming + open jabber rooms would effectively allow participation without registration.  Once I’ve reviewed I will get that corrected.


Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director