Hi John and Mike,
On 4/13/16, 11:32, "ietf on behalf of Michael Cameron"
<ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of
michael(_dot_)cameron(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
[...]
I'lI try to respond to some of your other points in a later post, but one
thing stood out that I'd like to address right away. I disagree that sitting
passively in a meeting and not humming could constitute "actively seeking to
influence the outcome..."
The Orlando IPRbis meeting report can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-iprbis
The relevant section is this:
"
SENSE OF THE ROOM
Russ Housley: Let's take a sense of the room on this topic. Is acting in
order to influence the outcome of the discussion, and not listening or
watching the action of others? That includes show of hands, writing,
humming, and so on.
Strong sense of the room that active influence counts as participation,
but listening and watching does not.
“
I at least found the outcome of the discussion sensible then, and appropriately
represented in 3979bis-08 now.
Tourism is allowed. Sitting in the room (or on a mailing list for that
matter), listing quietly, with good or ill intentions, is allowed. Physical
presence in the room (or subscription to a mailing list) does not constitute
Participation. We live with the risk of speculative patent application
filings, and with people owning essential IPR being quiet and keep the IPR
secret when they feel that others do enough to include their IPR in a
forthcoming RFC, and so on--all that in the name of openness, inclusiveness
(including inclusiveness to newcomers on to the IETF, or the subject matter of
the WG), cross fertilization and so on. We do not want closed rooms and closed
mailing lists. The undeniable risk, and the cost associated with this, we are
willing to pay.
Stephan
Best, Mike