[Infrastructure] Interested Party organization

[Ben Wilson]

That would work better-  I agree.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:57 AM Martijn Katerbarg via Infrastructure <
infrastructure at cabforum.org> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
>
>
> It occurred to me that, while we decided to create 1 “interested parties”
> member org to be used for all natural persons that are an IP, this might
> have a negative effect when registering which group someone belongs to,
> specially when we go down to mailing list management later on, and also
> makes it difficult to register their IPR agreement.
>
>
>
> WG membership (and participant type of it) is currently registered based
> on the member org, which would mean all these natural persons would share
> the same membership. I don’t think we want that.
>
>
>
> Is there any objection to instead adding their full name as a member
> organization and append it with something such as “(Private Person)”?
> This would save us from creating (complicated) exceptions in code,
> unwanted behaviour yet still allow us to differentiate between them.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> Martijn
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20220325/175c2de8/attachment-0001.html>