Re: Problem with new Note Well

It's quite obvious from reading this thread that the IAOC needs
to revert to the previous Note Well text right now, until the
wording issue is resolved.

It is apparent to me though that the BCP *requires* disclosure
as a condition of participation, regardless of employment agreements,
and always has done. That's why there has always been tolerance extended
to allow corporate IPR departments to have time to prepare and make
disclosures at lawyerly speed. Nothing new here except the more brutal
wording.

Regards
   Brian

On 24/01/2014 06:25, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> This new note well is a real problem for me and  I can not register without 
> clicking "I agree" to it. It is not consistent with the BCPs. The problem is 
> the line that says
>
>       • If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or 
> discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, 
> you must disclose that fact.
>
> I do not agree to that - I can’t given my NDA with my employer does not allow 
> me to disclose confidential information. Yes, I realize there is some weasel 
> words near the top that say "Exceptions may apply." but that does not help 
> me. When you are testifying in court on patents, credibility is incredibly 
> important. You can not have the lawyers on the other side saying that you 
> clicked yes I agree to the line above but you did not actually do what that 
> lines says. You may think this does to matter but the exact topic of how 
> Cisco employees deal with IPR at the IETF is a topic that I have testified on 
> in an East Texas court so this really does happen and really does happen to 
> me. It may happen to you next and you will be much happier if you say what 
> you mean and mean what you say. This new note well fails that test. 
>
> I realize some people would like to change the IETF policy to be that you do 
> have to do what that line says but I do not think that is a change the IESG 
> can make without IETF updating the BCP or at least having IETF consensus on 
> the change. I would respectfully ask the IESG to change this line to 
> something that is still brief but that people can agree with it. Simply 
> adding something like "or not contribute to the discussion on that 
> contribution" would probably solve this problem for me. 
>
> Thank you, 
>
> Cullen
>
> I will note that above line is not consistent with Cisco employment contracts 
> and if we can not resolve this I will be asking Cisco legal to inform Cisco 
> employees they can not agree with this without violating their employment 
> agreement. 
>
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> 
> wrote:
>
> > It seems that the shorter one is now being used on the IETF web site:
> > http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
> >
> >
> > On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> >
> > > Personally, I've never seen significant value in this shorter note well and 
> > > while others have been using this new text for the past few meetings, I've 
> > > stuck to the old.   Now that this is considered the recommended note well 
> > > for chairs to use, I guess I'll use it.  But, I personally think accuracy 
> > > should trump brevity.  I think the "must" in that bullet  ought to at least 
> > > be a should and that adding an "otherwise, one should not contribute to or 
> > > participate in any related IETF activities." would add more value.   
> > >
> > > Mary.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Bradner, Scott <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> 
> > > wrote:
> > > you are correct - we (Barry, the IESG & me) discussed this before the IESG 
> > > approved this text - they felt that
> > > being brief was more important than being fully accurate (or at least that 
> > > is the way I expressed it)
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > Scott O Bradner
> > > Senior Technology Consultant
> > >
> > > Harvard University Information Technology
> > > Innovation & Architecture
> > > (P) +1 (617) 495 3864
> > > 8 Story St, room 5014
> > > Cambridge, MA 02138
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) 
> > > <fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 16, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Barry Leiba 
> > > > <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The IESG has made final edits to the updated Note Well statement, and
> > > > > it has been officially updated:
> > > > > http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
> > > > >
> > > > > I have just uploaded the final versions of the Note Well meeting
> > > > > slides, attached to the bottom of the WG Chairs wiki:
> > > > > http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/WikiStart
> > > > >
> > > > > Please use this new version now, and please remember that as you
> > > > > prepare slides for the London meeting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Barry
> > > > The new note well says
> > > >
> > > >       • If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, 
> > > > or discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent 
> > > > applications, you must disclose that fact.
> > > >
> > > > Is that true?  Or is it missing something along the lines of section y of 
> > > > BCP 79 such as
> > > >
> > > >   or must not contribute to or participate in IETF activities with
> > > >   respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and personally
> > > >   knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not disclose.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Cullen