Subject: Procedures: NOTE WELL at WG sessions?

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:42:59 -0400

Someone mentioned to me at the beginning of this week that they
thought that the NOTE WELL should be shown at the beginning of WG
sessions.  Although this makes sense, in that we should take every
opportunity to expose attendees to the NOTE WELL, I can't find
anywhere that says it's actually the procedure, and at least in the
sessions I've attended few have done this.

Should we update the procedures to make this a requirement?

Thanks,
  Bill

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:36:17 +0200

Well, it's included in the registration package, so my assumption
is that everyone is deemed to be aware of it. When I was last a WG
chair, I always used to wave it at the beginning, as well as passing
out the blue sheets. IANAL, so I don't know what is really necessary.

      Brian

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:36:40 -0400 (EDT)

when teh note well note was first created it was in the era of
overhead projectors and copies were provided to the meeting
rooms to be shown at the start of the working group sessions

Scott

---
>From [email-masked]  Wed Jul 12 14:15:09 2006
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:42:59 -0400
From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
To: "IPR WG" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Procedures: NOTE WELL at WG sessions?

Thanks,
  Bill

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:56:49 -0400

> rooms to be shown at the start of the working group sessions

The last time I chaired a meeting I put it on a PPT slide.  I think
it's a good practice, but I would not make it a requirement unless
recommended by our legal advisors.  To the extent possible, I think
that we should try to limit procedural cruft to just that which helps
the WGs get their work done.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:56:07 -0700

Hey Brim-San -

As to this commentary, from a technical point I totally agree with you...
you would think that if the person attending an IETF meeting cant read and
write they shouldn't be there right?

But the problem with that "Cruft being annoying" thing is that without the
Cruft there is no real informed consent that is demonstrated AFAIK. The key
concept is "demonstration", something the IETF has run from at near
hypersonic speed since the implications include (Insert deep sharp
inhalation sound here) storing proofs of these, a task which has cost and
process implications beyond what this IETF is setup to handle.

But hey, if the WG's meeting's all opened with the same Boiler Plate IP
issues slide and it was available at the registration desk and part of the
package then I would probably feel better about it. Still there is a need to
have the registration package that people sign have a specific agreement
about NoteWell in and around the meeting place. Especially since genesis is
not tied to the meeting rooms and Note Well should control any and all
genesis or vetting on any IETF initiatives... at least if management gets
its act together it will...

My problem with what there is now is that I don't believe the statement in
re Note Well in the reg packet by itself is sufficient since there is
nothing in the reg process that documents that it was read which is retained
by the IETF. The current workflow process assumes the person can read among
other things and as intelligent as we all are, its still good practice to
prepare for the worst case... which under the ADA may also be an issue this
IETF is forced to deal with.

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:07:20 -0700

But that is not true anymore Scott is it. And so Note Well needs to evolve
too.

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: Procedures: NOTE WELL at WG sessions?

> X-Original-To: [email-masked]
> Delivered-To: [email-masked]
> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
>
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content
-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;
b=Zxc8JKMiTXv/uu5jjZZ5jZvlCQm25tYGxGnS/Q+NjKkqTTTTEdUxvCF3uh4rqgA7CYF9+5zP61
0ZE6eBw6kvN1b5uys9giu0L0GsYI90yE2zTYLpfM8G73swZhy/s8zopsz+5K34n4Sp/qZe41EFqg
GDH+rXvOpeVI+0SmDLmdk=
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
> X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89
> X-BeenThere: [email-masked]
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
> Precedence: list
> List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>,
> <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
> List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>,
> <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
> Errors-To: [email-masked]
>