[KI-LC] Fwd: [Staff] UMA F2F before IIW

[Brett McDowell]

There was no attachment.

As for whether we need to concern ourselves about this... yes, we do.   
But no, we don't need to be crazy about it.  I tried to capture the  
balance in my revision sent out a few minutes ago.  Most groups who  
are producing output that would require a license from contributors in  
order to be adopted down-the-road simply don't let you participate at  
all unless you've joined the organization.  I wonder what sort of  
"output" was being developed in your TERENA, GENI, etc. meetings that  
led them to omit seeking permission to use your contributions.


Brett McDowell  |  http://info.brettmcdowell.com  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org

On Oct 29, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Robin Wilton wrote:

> Hi folks -
>
> I've corrected some typos in the draft (attached).
>
> I have two comments:
>
> 1 - I think the document needs to specify what it is that  
> participants are being expected to join (Kantara, individual WG,  
> etc). I say this because there was a little confusion initially in  
> Las Vegas as to why we were asking participants to sign multiple  
> documents. Once we explained that it was per WG, to accommodate the  
> possibility that different WGs might have different IPR policies,  
> they were mostly happy with it.
>
> 2 - Just to note in passing that, for instance, when I have attended  
> meetings of bodies such as TERENA, GENI etc., I haven't had to sign  
> anything, despite the possibility of IP being contributed to the  
> discussion intentionally or otherwise. Is there perhaps a risk that  
> we're devoting disproportionate time and effort to this?
>
> Yrs.,
> Robin
>
> -- 
> Robin Wilton
> Director - Future Identity Ltd
>
> +44 (0)705 005 2931
> mail at futureidentity.eu
>