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?
That process, quite frankly, *will* happen with badly behaving
vendors.
Fundamentally, we'll need to design in handling of that. There
are other scenarios to worry about as well. We should think of every
imaginable one, and preclude them in the initial application.
There are lots of scenarios to worry about, but none that horrible
that they can't be cleanly adjusted for in the application. It
could also be $100/year for use of it, with a new applicaiton
each year to adjust for things badly behaving vendors do.
In the application for the trademark, we should include a clause
that, by using the trademark, you forego any right to sue about
the use of, certification, or anyting related to the revocation
of the trademark.
If you lose the faith of the IETF, it should be made clear, during
the applicationm that you will, quite frankly, lose use of the
trademark.
If you want to use the trademark, you have to agree to rules
about using it, and one of them should preclude the scenario
you discussed as well as some others I can consider. But the
issues are certainly manageable, and can be done in the application.
And I would argue, that this kind of a thing is so incredibly
important to the future of the Internet, that it has to be done.
We're not precluding anyone from doing anything, only complying
with a consensus. The IETF is about the fairest "jury" you are
ever going to find in IT.... and your comments against my
idea indicate the truth of this :) But that's what makes the
IETF great!
Kyle Lussier
AutoNOC LLC