ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

2012-11-06 13:02:11
Stephan:

Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear to us 
that we need to use very plain language to explain the responsibilities to 
participants.

Russ


On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:

Hi,
Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it necessary to tinker with
the Note Well?
As for the substance, I don't like the text for two reasons that can be
found inline.
Stephan

On 11.6.2012 10:00 , "IETF Chair" <chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:

The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please review
and comment.

Russ



=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===

Note Well

This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
BCP 79; please read it carefully.

The brief summary:
- By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
- If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
  say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
  applications, you need to disclose that fact.

1) I'm not in favor of this formulation because it can be read to impose a
stronger disclosure obligation on a participant than BCP 79.
Specifically, as Lars has already pointed out and according to BCP 79, I'm
not "needed" to disclose a patent I'm reasonably and personally aware of
that reads on a document of mine, if that patent is assigned to someone
else but myself and my sponsor/employer, ... For good reasons, BCP 79 does
not require third party disclosures.  I hope that the (few) added words
can be accommodated.
2) On the other hand, the issue of timeliness is not covered at all (as
others have already pointed out.)

I'm especially worried of point 1, which can be seen as a policy change
through the back door.  If, based on this hypothetical Note Well, we would
end up with an IETF disclosure culture in which third party disclosures
would become the norm rather than an exception, we could well end up with
a brain drain especially from folks not quite as senior in their
respective company hierarchy to have the leeway to ignore company guidance
about patents. 


- You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
 publicly archived.

For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).