We need to run this past Jorge. The gist of that section of the text basically came from an email exchange we had. I'm not at all opposed to changing it, but if we change it, Jorge needs to OK it.
On 2011-9-9, at 18:36, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Lars, > > For what it's worth, I have the same question as Ben - if this guidance > applies to the kinds of informal meetings in restaurants and bars that the > IESG is encouraging, even if they aren't publicized and aren't open to the > community, is there any way for two or more IETF participants to talk to each > other, that's NOT under NOTE WELL? > > I think it DOES make sense to say that the kinds of informal meetings the > IESG is discouraging - in IETF meeting rooms, with agendas, mailing lists, > presentations, attendee lists, and minutes - should include NOTE WELL > notifications. > > But if I was sitting next to Adam Roach on a plane headed for the IETF (which > has happened before) when he was editor of GIN and I was chair of MARTINI > (this last part did not), and we started talking about proposed changes to > the GIN draft, is that covered? > > Color me confused ... > > Spencer > >>>> -- Section 6 suggests side meetings should be (somehow "informally") >>>> covered by NOTE WELL. I think this is a very dangerous suggestion. The >>>> rest of the document suggests that a side meeting has no official >>>> standing. That seems to me to mean it's no different than a group of >>>> people who coincidentally participate in the IETF having a dinner or bar >>>> meeting on any subject at any time. Or a hallway conversation, for that >>>> matter. By the logic of this section, I can't really figure out how >>>> "informal" a meeting would need to be before it no longer fell under NOTE >>>> WELL. >>>> >>>> In an informal meeting, the participants should be able to follow any IPR >>>> policy they like. I can even imagine an informal meeting covered by an >>>> NDA, where the participants want to decide if they want to have further >>>> discussions of a subject under IETSF IPR rules or not. >>>> >>>> I think the best we can hope to do is suggest that side meeting organizers >>>> and participants be explicit with their expectations on IPR and >>>> confidentiality, so there is less chance for down-stream surprises. If we >>>> want something stronger than that, then we really need to create a new >>>> category of "official" meeting. >>> >>> We actually ran this question past the IETF legal counsel before adding >>> that section to the document. It was his stated opinion that the Note Well >>> applies. I therefore don't see what we could do here. >>> >> >> Did the counsel describe the triggers that causes Note Well to apply in >> general? Because if it automatically applies to an unofficial side meeting, >> then it's hard for me to see where it _doesn't_ apply when 2 or more IETF >> participants have a conversation. For example: >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
