ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Forthcoming draft: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions

2012-01-26 20:21:14
Reinforcing some of what Adrian said:

On 1/26/12 5:35 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:
-- Is the benefit of infringing worse than the cost of the sanction?
-- If it's not sanctionable, it must be ok!

This is a line we have worried about. Remember, this document came out of us being asked, "What can we do about these violations?" and our answer being, "You already have the tools in your bag. Apply them to the situation as you see fit." I'm pretty sure we *don't* want a "codified system of sanctions", and if the document is too far in that direction, I'd certainly be open to suggestions to make it less so.

Plus, if there are sanctions, then you need a judgement process to decide when 
the sanctions will be applied.  Is the IETF set up for that?

My view here is that you don't need a "judgment process"; you need judgment. That's what the bit in section 6 and the appendix are getting at: Members of the community and chairs and ADs have to take a look at the situation and decide what is appropriate to the situation. If someone is disrupting the process by making late disclosures, they can be sanctioned for it, and that sanction might amount to a chair saying, "Please try to contribute more productively to the WG by making these disclosures earlier", just as they would say to someone who is making obnoxious comments to a WG, "Please try to contribute more productively by sticking to the technical issues." Or they might fire the person as a document editor. Or they might initiate a PR Action. None of these are required, and most don't require much formal process. They do require some judgment on the part of the WG and chair.

Rather than bright lines and clear sanctions, it seems like a general culture 
of conservatism, staying far away from things that could possibly be construed 
as violations, would be more in tune with the way other things work at the IETF.

I couldn't agree more. As cited in the document, coming up with ways to make it more likely that people do the right thing is the topic of another document. This was strictly aimed at, "Are there things to do when the situation goes pear-shaped?"

No real answers here, just expressing a gut reaction.

Exceedingly helpful. Thanks.

pr

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf