What you are missing in the point, is that it is not neccessary the
reponsibility of IETF to revoke licence but of the company agreed by IETF to
do the job of distributing or revoking the IETF trademark "IETF Approved"
I'm sure many companies would bid to be the one to distribute or revoke
"IETF certified" trademarks. They would come up with a fair and open
certification process...
If I'm not mistake, When a company is certified ISO 9001, it is not the ISO
which does the certification, but a company approved by ISO.
Cheers.
Franck Martin
Network and Database Development Officer
SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
Fiji
E-mail: franck(_at_)sopac(_dot_)org <mailto:franck(_at_)sopac(_dot_)org>
Web site: http://www.sopac.org/
<http://www.sopac.org/> Support FMaps: http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/
<http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/>
This e-mail is intended for its addresses only. Do not forward this e-mail
without approval. The views expressed in this e-mail may not be necessarily
the views of SOPAC.
-----Original Message-----
From: grenville armitage [mailto:gja(_at_)ureach(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2002 5:28
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
Kyle Lussier wrote:
[..]
Imagine if the CIO of
Wells Fargo requires Microsoft to be IETF certified, or no more
money from them?
Just imagine. Company X gets "IETF Certified", starts getting business.
Some-one crossposts an email claiming that Company X apps break Mime
specification. Uproar. Moral indignation. IETF revokes
Company X's certification. Company X starts losing business.
Company X unleashes the lawyers.
Imagine, eh?
gja