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

[Scott Bradner <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 4:06 PM, Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Barry and I had a chat about this.  I also had offline conversations with Mike Cameron and a chat with Joel.  Barry and I at least agree on the problems.  The solutions are mine for now, and they absolutely are in need of wordsmithing...
> 
> Based on the discussion so far, there seem to be a need for the following:
> 
> 1. A clarification that an AD, by the nature of his/her office, regularly becomes aware of Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF Last Call) and, therefore, cannot be expected to disclose any IPR Covering those Contributions until such late time in the process.
> To fix this point, a simple explanatory sentence somewhere in section 5.2.2 would suffice.  For example “By the nature of their office, IETF area directors regularly become aware of Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF Last Call) and, therefore and in such cases, cannot be expected to disclose any IPR Covering those Contributions until such late time in the process.”

this does not seem right

why not say 
By the nature of their office, IETF area directors may become aware of Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF Last Call or during IESG review) and, therefore and in such cases, cannot be expected to disclose any IPR Covering those Contributions until they become aware of them.”