Todd,
You may or may not be right about whether an individual can make a decision to
disclose. In my experience they often can't, but do have the power to
request/implore their employer to disclose.
On the other hand, they *do* have the power to not participate.
BCP79 offers this choice and I make no comment about which is preferable.
However, it is clear from BCP79 that individuals have the choice and the
responsibility to choose.
Thanks,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of todd
glassey
Sent: 14 February 2012 17:43
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions
On 2/12/2012 10:12 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi SM,
So isnt the real issue that of informed consent? If you dont know that
someone else has already existing work is it their fault for not telling
the IETF?
If so then there would also need to be some form of process identical to
this for verifying that the people participating hold legal power of
attorney pertaining to that work for their sponsors, or they cannot make
any 'management decisions' pertaining to any project.
The misunderstanding in the IETF BCP78 and BCP79 documents is that
one-size fits all for IETF participants. It simply cannot - In fact many
participants are there to work on processes and efforts for their
sponsors who have no legal power of attorney for their sponsors what so
ever. This is part of the myriad of misrepresentations that the IETF and
its parent ISOC are still trying to get the rest of the world to swallow
IMHO.
Todd
There has been some discussion on this list about
draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-00. Thanks for the input.
The conversation seems to be partitioned into:
- discussion of sanctions and how to apply them
- discussion of measures that can be taken to
help people to adhere to BCP79
The following messages are about the "help people":
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13082.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg02081.html
Yes. I've been watching those threads, and I think that some other WGs are
thinking of following similar procedures.
Furthermore, there is some debate about who should/can be responsible
for
applying sanctions.
[snip]
In Appendix A:
"- Does the large number of patents that the individual has authored
provide any level of excuse for failing to notice that one of
their patents covered the IETF work?"
That should be "the individual has invented".
Yes.
I suggest removing the above as prolific inventors should pay more
attention to BCP 79.
I'm inclined to agree with you.
Others feel that there may be some mitigation in this case.
By listing the point, we are giving the WG chairs the opportunity to
consider
it. They may deduce that it provides an excuse, no excuse, or exacerbates
the
case.
Section 6.1.2 of BCP 79 is about an IETF Participant's IPR in
Contributions by others. Should sanctions be considered if the
individual participates and does not disclose?
Yes. That is certainly my intention in this document. All violations of BCP
79
are cause to consider sanctions. The severity of the case may be judged by
many
factors, and I suppose that the level of "participation" may be one of these
factors. I am hoping that Section 2.1 makes the first point clear, and
Appendix
A the second point.
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this
account come with personal disclaimers.
Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings.
_______________________________________________
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