Re: Applying "Note Well" to side meetings

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Sunday, 21 July, 2019 08:33 -0400 Warren Kumari
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> It feel to me like the IETF is drifting from a culture of
> "let's make protocols to make the Internet work better; 'tis
> good for all and also fun!" into a much more corporate / "how
> can I leverage this organization for my benefit" feel - yes,
> companies have always tried to optimize for themselves, but
> I'm talking more about the culture / "feeling" of the IETF. It
> feels to me[0] like we are moving from (to quote Spencer) "Do
> the right thing" to "the rules say I *can* do X, so X is fine
> to do..."

This is a feeling, and point, I've tried to suggest several
times recently in a variety of contexts.  Not good, either
generally or because our procedures and safeguards are not
well-designed for situations in which people are trying to split
hairs or beat the system.

The other observation about "IETF control" is that, if the IETF
is providing the facilities, facilitating the meetings (even by
supplying a web page or bulleting board telling that they are
being held or where they are) or considering postings about them
to IETF lists to be within our rules, then they are most likely
IETF discussions or activities .

IANAL, but what I was told by lawyers specializing in standards
bodies and their legal status many years ago is that activities
of standards bodies, at least ones that meet other criteria, are
given a certain amount of tolerance.  Rules like those of BCP 78
and BCP 79 (they are the source of the rules, the Note Well, no
matter how many times we repeat or point to it, is just a
pointer and reminder), really protect the recipient.  Suppose,
for example, that Warren decided to hold a private meeting with
someone from a major competitor of Google's, say Baidu.  They
didn't publicize the meeting, they claimed it was not about IETF
business, and Warren explicitly left his AD hat outside the
door.   Well, they had better be discussing planting potatoes
and be able to prove it because, otherwise such a meeting is
bait for competitiveness and antitrust regulators. From what I
was told "back then", if Goodgle's and Baidu's lawyers haven't
warned them about such situations, they aren't doing their jobs.
And, at least for that particular situation, claiming that we
all participate in IETF as individuals so there is no problem
wouldn't pass a laugh test.   

Have a few others present, keep Warren's hat on, etc., and most
likely no problem.  

Let's not even try to figure out how finely the lines can be
drawn.

best,
   john