--On Friday, February 07, 2014 11:28 -0600 Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 2/7/14 2:05 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
I'll again point to the IRTF statement, which
does:http://irtf.org/ipr. We'll make it available to the IETF
for the low, low price of a round of beers for the IRSG:-)
FWIW, I like the IRTF statement and think it would be a fine
addition/replacement *for what's on the web site*. It's not
short enough IMO for the face-to-face in-room reminder,
particularly if a chair were going to actually *say* it, but
maybe if something of this nature appeared on the web site,
the in-room reminder wouldn't be as necessary.
Pete,
As others have suggested, if you want to raise a "please pay
attention to things you have presumably read" flag in meetings
and especially if you think the current version is too long or
complicated, just do that with one of many versions of the "if
you or your organization have IPR in this topic you had best
either understand the BCP provisions or leave" statement, with
or without a second "if know of someone else's, you should be
paying attention to the BCPs too" remark.
Don't try to summarize. You can't get it right in a sentence or
four and will just create risks without improving understanding
or, most likely, compliance.
(And to answer an earlier question, yes, we've had a bunch of
late disclosures. They seem to come in waves.
...
Let me then suggest a small bit of research. You know who the
responsible parties are. Have you asked them whether additional
notices would have made any difference and, if so, of what sort
and where? Obviously some will be unwilling (or unable) to
respond accurately. But it would be nice to have at least a
shred of evidence that more investment in fine-tuning
announcements would actually improve the rate of timely
disclosures.
In addition, there is a more interesting question than "have
their been late disclosures". It is "how many of the late
disclosures were defended on the basis of ignorance about the
rules?". If the number of those is non-zero, it would also be
interesting to know whether (and how often) that claim has been
made under oath in an actual proceeding rather than informal
remarks to the IESG.
Unless there have been serious claims that the reason for
non-disclosure is ignorance of the rules or our failure to have
enough notices, I'm not sure what problem you are trying to
solve that is important enough to justify the costs of this
discussion.
best,
john