On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> wrote: > > It’s possible we could solve this problem simply by changing the > definition of Participants in our IPRA to also include “individuals”, in > addition to entities. But that could apply to all “individuals” who > participate (even on behalf of their employers), so we need to think this > through carefully. >
Could you expand on what you mean here / what your concern is with the "(even on behalf of their employers)"? It sounds like you see some risk to individuals participating 'on behalf of' their employer, where their employer is not directly a member - is that correct? Could you expand on what you believe that risk is? Should you care to dive into the nuance of alternative IP policies, during the last time we revisited the IPRA, we discussed the IETF Notewell, which is akin to a "warning to summarize the expectations", with the broader expansion of the IP agreement captured at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5378 (and others, but let's focus on this). Within the IETF, the following is I think particularly relevant for concerns regarding individuals versus entities, namely https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5378#section-5.6
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
