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@ietf.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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
