It seems I expressed that in a manner that is misunderstood. What I was saying is that the CH Rule *is* a type of NDA, and I illustrated that with the link to Fontana's comments. I also with the two respondents, that an NDA would be INappropriate here. Sorry that my earlier sentence was ambiguous.

In the same message I suggested a draft statement that I reckon would achieve the apparent objective of a simple conventional caveat that researchers use to liberate communication from narrow bounds of attribution:

"Participation in OpenChain discussions involves individuals in their capacities as individual professionals, such that comments are driven by their own research, interests, questions and views, independently of the official stances of the organizations with which they may work. It shall be considered inaccurate for any written reports of discussions to include individual or organization references unless the substance and attributions are vetted in follow-up written communication with the individuals or organizations identified."