I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue of
violation without some sort of "burden of proof".
Hmm.
I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet another way to
DOS a WG with IPR. If a person believes that there is a violation that is
worthy of the name, they should probably see to it that it gets discussed, but
I don't see how they make that determination without having at least some data
or report that can be verified. If someone in my working group brings such an
accusation to me, trust me, the first question I am going to ask is "why do you
believe that". If the answer is "can't you see they have shifty eyes", it will
end there. I'm looking for at minimum that a named party has evidence to
support it.