On 5/9/12 1:51 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
they believe has violated the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by
sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list.
That seems reasonable, but publishing such a belief without having the
wording checked by a libel lawyer might be risky. I think the draft
should state that a call for sanctions should be based on factual
evidence and not on "belief". How about
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
shown to have violated the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by
sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list, including a
a short summary of the relevant facts and events.
Shown how and by whom? I think you're conflating two things here. Any
participant can *call* for sanctions to be applied to anyone they
believe has violated the policy. No libel in saying that I believe you
have violated the policy. The sanctions ought not be applied until the
chair/AD/whoever reasonably determines that the policy has in fact been
violated. But that's not what the sentence above is talking about. I
don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue of
violation without some sort of "burden of proof". Can we figure out some
words that express both things?
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102