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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
