In good faith that you believe, or potentially believe, that
....
In message <4FAB2563(_dot_)3090309(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>, Pete Resnick
writes:
On 5/9/12 6:40 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue of v
iolation without some sort of "burden of proof".
Hmm.
I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet another wa
y to DOS a WG with IPR. If a person believes that there is a violation that i
s 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 s
uch an accusation to me, trust me, the first question I am going to ask is "w
hy do you believe that". If the answer is "can't you see they have shifty eye
s", it will end there. I'm looking for at minimum that a named party has evid
ence to support it.
I completely agree. That's why I asked that we figure out some text that
does both things: Indicate that it's OK to say that you believe someone
crossed the line and explain your reasons for that belief, but not
require that it be a proven fact before you can even broach the subject.
I can see how the current text might be too lax, but I thought Brian's
text was too stringent. Looking for a happy medium.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org