Re: Change in IPR policies

[Alexa Morris <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

> On Jun 10, 2020, at 5:01 AM, John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jay,
> 
>> On Jun 9, 2020, at 10:30 PM, Jay Daley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 It’s not clear to me if you mean charging for 108, the clause prohibiting streaming (now withdrawn), or if the same policy were in place for a future online meeting?
> 
> I was referring to audio streaming; sorry I wasn’t clear.
> 
>>> 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 I wouldn’t feel aggrieved if it were rescinded and then there were a lot of free riders.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? 
> 
> Yes I think it would. 

I want to clarify that this error was mine, not Jay's. I misinterpreted a remark made during a 108 planning conversation and walked away with the misapprehension that the audio streaming service had already been terminated. 

Alexa

> 
> If I understand correctly, at that point we’d be close to the status quo ante, modulo use of authenticated WebEx for full remote participation (but listen-only audio would be available). That seems OK to me; essentially the minimal set of changes necessary to adapt to the circumstances.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> —John
>