Subject: Re: Proposed Update to Note Well

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:50:41 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>

    > With all due respect, that sentence could be improved.

Agree with others; splitting it up into two simpler sentences is an
improvement.

A tweak, though (you lost something in the second sentence):

   Anything that you write, say, or discuss in the IETF, formally or informally,
   either at an IETF meeting, or in another IETF venue, such as a mailing
   list, is an IETF contribution. If any contribution of yours is covered by
   a patent or patent application made by you or your employer, you or they
   must disclose that.

The original allowed the employer to make the disclosure (since, after all,
the employee may not know of all patent filings), and also had a positive
requirement to make such a disclosure; this revised one brings all that back.

	Noel

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:54:57 +0300

I like and support the idea of a brief summary that fits in one readable 
slide

+1 for the Peter's version as it clarifies what is an IETF contribution, 
and to the Noel tweak of the second sentence.

-- 
Salvatore Loreto, PhD
www.sloreto.com

On 6/22/12 6:50 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>      >  From: Peter Saint-Andre<[email-masked]>
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:14:09 -0600

> requirement to make such a disclosure; this revised one brings all that back.

At the risk of starting a long thread about "we all contribute as
individuals", I'll note that traditionally the IPR rules have applied to
real people, not corporations. It's not the employee's responsibility to
know of all patent filings, and our IPR rules don't make that
assumption; we say only that if you have such knowledge and you make a
contribution that is based on such knowledge, you need to disclose the
IPR. If you don't want to disclose, you don't need to make a
contribution. I suppose it is fine to say "you or they need to disclose
it", but leaving it up to the faceless "they" might give individuals the
idea that this is all about corporations and not about each of us as
individual participants at the IETF. And somehow we also lost the point
about "you know" or "you believe" along the way. Thus I'd be more
happier with something like this:

   Anything that you write, say, or discuss in the IETF, formally or
   informally, either at an IETF meeting or in another IETF venue
   such as a mailing list, is an IETF contribution.  If you believe that
   any contribution of yours is covered by a patent or patent
   application made by you or your employer, you must disclose
   that fact or arrange for your employer to disclose it on your behalf.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:45:14 +0000

On 6.22.2012 07:14 , "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email-masked]> wrote:

s/made by you or your employer/controlled by you or your employer/

And I would remove "on your behalf", as it a) adds to the word count, and
b) could be viewed as a requirement to fill in the section III of the
disclosure form--something that is neither common practice nor, IMO, overly
useful.

Stephan

>>informally,

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:12:18 -0600

> disclosure form--something that is neither common practice nor, IMO, overly

You're right on both counts. So (and addressing Randy's concern):

   Anything that you write, say, or discuss in the IETF, formally or
   informally, either at an IETF meeting or in another IETF venue
   such as a mailing list, is an IETF contribution.  If you believe
   that any contribution of yours is covered by a patent or patent
   application controlled by you or an organization with which you
   are affiliated, you must disclose it or arrange for that
   organization to disclose it.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:27:12 -0400

>   organization to disclose it.

While I like the words, I'll note that we have now about doubled the
length from the version we started this thread with.  Remember that
the point was to have it be *very* brief, something that we can
reasonable expect people to read on the screen, and chairs to read
aloud in meetings without its sounding like the disclaimer on a
pharmaceutical advert.  And remember that it's not meant to tell you
everything you need to know, ever -- only to remind you of the
significant point, and to refer you elsewhere for details.

Given that, does the community really want this version?  Does the
community think it will meet those needs, and that it will really work
to be read aloud in roughly 40 sessions a day for five days?

Barry

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:45:58 -0600

> to be read aloud in roughly 40 sessions a day for five days?

Lawyers and spec writers are not known for brevity. :)

Here's something really short:

   By participating here, you agree to follow IETF processes.

   If you actively contribute and you believe that what you
   contribute is controlled by patents, you need to disclose that.

   You understand that meetings might be recorded and broadcast.

Then just point to a longer version for everything else.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:46:16 -0400

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:27:12AM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote:

> pharmaceutical advert. 

If the chairs are going to read boilerplate in meetings all week long,
it's going to sound like such a disclaimer anyway.  I'm happy about
the "short", but I don't understand the reason that the notice will
need to be read out loud.  Is such a requirement the plan?  If so,
why?

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:49:43 -0400

> need to be read out loud.  Is such a requirement the plan?  If so,

No, no... no *requirement*.  We just want it to be concise enough so
that it *can* reasonably be done.  It's kind of the test: if it's too
long for that, then it's probably too long.  The current Note Well
says what needs to be said, but makes everyone's eyes glaze over.

Barry

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:51:52 +0000

Hi Noel,

"Affiliate" is overly broad, and undefined and therefore not
supported by BCP79.  It cannot be reasonably expected of an IETF
participant to have an objective view of with whom he/she is affiliated.

One (the most?) common definition of "affiliate" used in contracts
results in a sweep in of any corporate entity that is controlled,
or controls, another entity, including individuals.  Recursively.
As there is no definition of "affiliate" in BCP79, we have to assume
such a common definition.

Now, I'm affiliated with IEEE, and so is John Doe, who controls a
patent of which I believe it may be necessary to practice a draft.
I happen to be aware of John Doe's patent because John Doe is a former
colleague of mine, but other than that, and our IEEE memberships, there
Is no other connection between John Doe and myself.  I surely
do not have an disclosure obligation based on our joint affiliation
with IEEE?

Using affiliate would IMO be a policy change through the back door.

I would rather strongly suggest to stick with vocabulary available in
BCP79.
The formulation used in BCP79 is "employer or sponsor".  Wordcount +=2  :-(

Stephan