On Aug 14, 2008, at 7:20 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Marshall Eubanks <tme(_at_)multicasttech(_dot_)com> writes:
I would divide this a little differently
- there are removals that can be done automatically. Some of these
would be
- exact duplicates
- spam (or any other postings) _that don't mention patent rights or
IPR_
- postings with offensive words
These do not bother me. (There should, however, be a list of these
reasons in a BCP IMO.)
I'd move the last category in under the spam: just because a patent
license contains some unrelated word shouldn't mean it must be
removed.
If a disclosure regarding some patent contains offensive words, I
think
readers would prefer to deal with it.
- then there are removals that require judgement, which make me very
nervous.
Indeed.
Suppose that, as a result of a border dispute, someone from a
neighboring country
posts a claim that all of Large Company X's IPR is now made available
under the terms of GPL v3.
This might be done as part of a wider campaign of cyber warfare.
Removing this is making a judgement on the validity of IPR claims,
which we claim we do not do. It would be
much better to reject such messages before they are ever posted.
Rejecting disclosures appears to be a judgement call too.
One solution would be to require a TDMA like confirmation of the
existence of posters (do they
exist, and are they with the company they claim to be speaking for)
_before_ the posting is accepted.
So, I would suggest
- a published list of reasons for automatic rejection of a disclosure
+1.
- a requirement that a company confirm the validity of a disclosure
before it is posted publicly.
How?
In the US, I believe that every company must have a counsel of record.
Verifying a disclosure with that counsel
should be sufficient. I think that there are similar provisions in
other countries.
Our counsel could probably suggest forms here.
Note also that there are third-party disclosures, which by their
nature
aren't authorized by the patent-holding organization.
I think that the only non-automatic reason to remove those should be
through a lawsuit. (I.e., that unless
it was a clear spam, abuse a duplicate, etc., outside parties should
make that decision.)
A TDMA process might be good here too - i.e., an email sent to verify
that a disclosure was indeed sent from the
poster, along the lines of what you have to do to sign up to an IETF
list.
There should also be a formal way, similar to what is done on IETF
lists, to deny someone posting privileges
in case they started to abuse this.
Regards
Marshall
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf