Subject: 1.k in draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04: scope of "participation"

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:56:16 -0400

Hi, Jorge.

> 1.k - overhauled "participation" definition to indicate that in-person
> attendance at an IETF session is "participation" in the session.  Sending a
> message to a mailing list is participation in that discussion, but merely
> subscribing to or getting messages from an email list does NOT constitute
> participation (i.e., no IPR disclosure required if you just lurk on a list).

I do not believe that this accurately reflects consensus in the BoF.
So I went to the text to see exactly what's there:

   k. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": means making a
      Contribution, as described above, or in any other way acting in
      order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the
      IETF Standards Process.  Without limiting the generality of the
      foregoing, attending all or part of a session at a live IETF
      meeting is deemed to mean participating in the entire session.
      Sending a message to an email list is deemed to constitute
      participating in the associated email discussion for its entire
      duration and any successor email discussions.  Likewise, simply
      subscribing to or reading messages received from an IETF email
      list does not constitute participation in the relevant IETF
      discussion.

As I remember the BoF, we had two main discussions on which consensus
was judged:

1. Is one allowed to attend a meeting session and *not* participate.
I believe we had rough consensus for "yes".  Arguments included BoFs
and other proposals of new work, where one could not anticipate what
was going to come up, and situations where attendance of an author or
subject-matter expert on one topic was desirable, and it would not
serve us well to keep her away because of disclosure issues on another
topic.

2. What is the scope of "participation" in a meeting session?  If one
participates in one topic, can one be silent on another and not be
considered a participant in it?  On this there was not rough
consensus: Russ judged about 2/3 in favour of "the scope is the full
session," and 1/3 for "the scope can be more granular than that."

The new text is clearly wrong with respect to (1) in the second
sentence, and is assuming a resolution of (2) in the second sentence
for which there is not (yet?) consensus.

In the last sentence, "likewise" seems like the wrong word.  Perhaps
"On the other hand," would be better.

Barry

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:23:10 -0400

My recollection and notes match Barry's, and so I believe that the new 1.k text
does not reflect the sense of the room in the BoF.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Barry Leiba
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 12:56 PM
> To: Jorge Contreras
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: 1.k in draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04: scope of "participation"
> 
> Hi, Jorge.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:57:07 -0400

Text suggestions for Barry's first topic:

"attending all or part of a session" -> "participating in any part of a session"

[This sentence is part of Barry's second topic, but "attending" needs to
 be changed to "participating" to deal with the first topic.]

      meeting is deemed to mean participating in the entire session.
      Sending a message to an email list is deemed to constitute
      participating in the associated email discussion for its entire
      duration and any successor email discussions.

OLD
	Likewise, simply
      subscribing to or reading messages received from an IETF email
      list does not constitute participation in the relevant IETF
      discussion.
NEW
In contrast, attending a session at a live IETF meeting without making
a Contribution, subscribing to an IETF email list or reading messages
received from an IETF email list do not constitute participation in the
relevant IETF discussion.

Thanks,
--David
> Black, David
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 2:23 PM
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: 1.k in draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04: scope of "participation"
>

---

From: Michael Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 19:32:20 +0000

I concur with David. I think this is the more eloquent solution (compared to my proposal).

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Black, David
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 1:57 PM
To: Black, David; Barry Leiba
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: 1.k in draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04: scope of "participation"

[This sentence is part of Barry's second topic, but "attending" needs to  be changed to "participating" to deal with the first topic.]

OLD
	Likewise, simply
      subscribing to or reading messages received from an IETF email
      list does not constitute participation in the relevant IETF
      discussion.
NEW
In contrast, attending a session at a live IETF meeting without making a Contribution, subscribing to an IETF email list or reading messages received from an IETF email list do not constitute participation in the relevant IETF discussion.

Thanks,
--David
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Black, David
> My recollection and notes match Barry's, and so I believe that the new 
> 1.k text does not reflect the sense of the room in the BoF.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> > Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> > > 1.k - overhauled "participation" definition to indicate that 
> > > in-person attendance at an IETF session is "participation" in the 
> > > session.  Sending a message to a mailing list is participation in 
> > > that discussion, but merely subscribing to or getting messages 
> > > from an email list does NOT constitute participation (i.e., no IPR disclosure required if you just lurk on a list).
> >
> > As I remember the BoF, we had two main discussions on which 
> > consensus was judged:
> >
> > was going to come up, and situations where attendance of an author 
> > or subject-matter expert on one topic was desirable, and it would 
> > not serve us well to keep her away because of disclosure issues on 
> > another topic.
> >
> > 2. What is the scope of "participation" in a meeting session?  If 
> > one participates in one topic, can one be silent on another and not 
> > be considered a participant in it?  On this there was not rough

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:09:42 +0100

> "attending all or part of a session" -> "participating in any part of a session"

I was not in Orlando, but I completely agree with this change.

> relevant IETF discussion.

The phrase "attending a session at a live IETF meeting" now occurs twice
and does not make it clear whether it includes remote access. I think it
needs its own definition, such as

"Attending a session at a live IETF meeting" means attending a
working group meeting or other session during a main or interim
IETF meeting, in person or by any form of telecommunication
allowing one to hear and/or see the proceedings or a live transcript
thereof."

Regards
   Brian

> .

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:08:21 -0400

I was not able to attend the BOF, so was not able to participate
there.

> not serve us well to keep her away because of disclosure issues on

+1.

> session," and 1/3 for "the scope can be more granular than that."

I believe that obligation to disclose needs to stay scoped to the
actual participation. Otherwise, folk may find themselves obligated to
disclose in areas where they really are not paying attention at all
and will not realistically know they need to disclose. This appears to
place new burdens on a participatant.

For example, participating in one discussion in a meeting could
obligate an individual to disclose in a bunch of areas where they
practically have no knowledge (they may have knowledge of IPR, but not
know it covers some document they haven't even read).  I do not think
it is advisable or practical to place obligations on individuals that
are not "making a contribution", per the traditional definition.

Consider WGs that have a relatively large scope, where an individual
only has interest in one or two documents/technologies. The individual
does not care about (or follow) everything the WG is involved in (or
happens to discuss during a specific meeting). Look at a WG like DHCP,
where one finds options for all sorts of technologies not related to
DHCP itself. If one participates in that WG on one document, that
should not automatically drag in disclosure obligations on all other
technologies the WG happens to be looking at. Similar issues can arise
in other WGs, e.g., ones that have a lot of documents in addition to
the core WG technologies. Would speaking at the microphone on one
document, for example, lead to obligtions to disclose on *individual*
submissions that (typically) get a 5 minute presentation slot?

The scope of disclosures and obligations to disclose should stay
limited to the specific technologies an individual really is
contributing to or "participating in". I worry that expanding the
obligation beyond that (as the above seems to suggest) will lead to
new problems and place expanded obligations on participants that are
not desirable.

Thomas

---

From: Michael Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:46:41 +0000

> serve us well to keep her away because of disclosure issues on another 

+2

> session," and 1/3 for "the scope can be more granular than that."

I believe that obligation to disclose needs to stay scoped to the actual participation. Otherwise, folk may find themselves obligated to disclose in areas where they really are not paying attention at all and will not realistically know they need to disclose. This appears to place new burdens on a participatant.

For example, participating in one discussion in a meeting could obligate an individual to disclose in a bunch of areas where they practically have no knowledge (they may have knowledge of IPR, but not know it covers some document they haven't even read).  I do not think it is advisable or practical to place obligations on individuals that are not "making a contribution", per the traditional definition.

Consider WGs that have a relatively large scope, where an individual only has interest in one or two documents/technologies. The individual does not care about (or follow) everything the WG is involved in (or happens to discuss during a specific meeting). Look at a WG like DHCP, where one finds options for all sorts of technologies not related to DHCP itself. If one participates in that WG on one document, that should not automatically drag in disclosure obligations on all other technologies the WG happens to be looking at. Similar issues can arise in other WGs, e.g., ones that have a lot of documents in addition to the core WG technologies. Would speaking at the microphone on one document, for example, lead to obligtions to disclose on *individual* submissions that (typically) get a 5 minute presentation slot?

The scope of disclosures and obligations to disclose should stay limited to the specific technologies an individual really is contributing to or "participating in". I worry that expanding the obligation beyond that (as the above seems to suggest) will lead to new problems and place expanded obligations on participants that are not desirable.

Thomas

+1

---

From: tsg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:40:11 -0700

> For example, participating in one discussion in a meeting could obligate an individual to disclose in a bunch of areas where they practically have no knowledge (they may have knowledge of IPR, but…

Why? - are they not practicing as a fiduciary in some form if they 
represent someone else? If they represent their own IP Interests - and 
they are there harvesting IP for other projects (through their exposure 
if nothing else) then there is a disclosure requirement one would think.

Again this all boils down to the idea that there can be no lurkers - 
everything and everyone must be out in the public for all to see - total 
transparency.

Todd

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:03:05 +0300

> place new burdens on a participatant.

FWIW, I agree with what Thomas says above.

Jari

---

From: tsg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 05:45:12 -0700

>> place new burdens on a participatant.

Why not just require all parties to register and lose the entire 
potential for this problem. Why does the IETF need anonymity in its IP 
suppliers?

No other organization on earth uses this model and bluntly - none of the 
commercial or otherwise players can participate in that type of behavior 
in the real world so why is it necessary here?

It isnt about tradition - because today's IETF has NOTHING TO DO WITH 
THE IETF's ROOTS, it is a completely different animal and it works on 
leading edge protocols and processes instead of being a place where 
protocols which were already in existence are standardized and 
interoperability ensured between the various versions available to the 
consumer.

So again - why is anonymity necessary?

Todd