ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2012-01-27 15:05:45
I agree there are many "gray area" cases that I think it would be best
to shy away from over specifying.  But what do we do when there is a
bright line violation of RFC3979?  IMO I think we should have consensus
on a very small set of repercussions for blatant violations of RFC3979.
 Even if the consensus is no repercussions.  (In which case we've
established that compliance with the IPR policy is optional.)

While I understand the desire for the WG chairs to deal with such cases
on an as-needed basis, it means that the WG chairs scope is being
expanded from managing the development of technical consensus to
enforcing  IPR disclosure rules (including needing to consider about
legal repercussions.)  I don't think this is a good idea.

Lou

On 1/26/2012 6:35 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!

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?

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.

No real answers here, just expressing a gut reaction.

--Richard



On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:

Just a heads-up:

Adrian Farrel and I started work on a draft to focus discussion on sanctions 
that could be applied to violators of the IETF's IPR policy. Because of 
incidents like the present one, we've each been asked by WG chairs and 
others what can be done in response to such violations. We've centered our 
draft around sanctions that are available under current IETF procedures, not 
introducing new ones. The draft  should be available in the I-D repository 
soon. We think this could usefully become an RFC and we would welcome 
discussion.

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

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




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