On 1/26/2012 3:35 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
I appreciate that there need to be disincentives to infringing the IPR policy, but I'm a
little wary of the idea of codifying a system of sanctions. Mainly for the sorts of
"gaming the system" thinking they engender:
It is likely that we have already been seeing gaming by organizations. More
than once and by more than one.
The reality is that people and companies that want to find ways to work around
barriers they don't like will do that. The belief that codification encourages
this is, I believe, without empirical basis.[1] What /is/ empirically
demonstrated is that the IETF is in a poor position with respect to such actions
that run contrary to our culture.
The IETF currently relies on a bit of mythology that worked well 20 years ago
but is very skewed with respect to reality today. The core of that mythology
concerns individual contribution and it's important that we keep it, for all
sorts of reasons.
What I believe is /not/ worth keeping -- and which we have already made
piecemeal concessions to -- is that corporations in fact /do/ participate in the
IETF and need to be treated as responsible participants. (Note that the word
responsible, here, has two interpretations. I mean both of them.)
Organizations that do not adapt to a changed world experience the same fate as
species that don't adapt.
The fear about codification that /does/ make sense to me is in making rules that
are superficial, overly detailed, misdirected, excessively rigid, or the like.
In other words, yes, we need to make changes carefully. We need to formulate
clear principles, proper procedures, adequate mechanisms for exceptions, etc., etc.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf