I agree with Adrian. Individuals come to the IETF, not companies. Sure
they are employed by companies, but they also have to follow the rules stated
in BCP79. I am really tired of the myriad of excuses people have given in the
past about why they have not been able to comply. Its a really, really simple
thing to read and understand the rules about the IETF's IPR policy BEFORE you
submit a draft (or speak at a meeting), and WG chairs go out of their way to
give people a number of warnings and reminders about this. If after all of
that you disagree, then go home.
--Tom
> Todd,
>
> You may or may not be right about whether an individual can make a decision to
> disclose. In my experience they often can't, but do have the power to
> request/implore their employer to disclose.
>
> On the other hand, they *do* have the power to not participate.
>
> BCP79 offers this choice and I make no comment about which is preferable.
> However, it is clear from BCP79 that individuals have the choice and the
> responsibility to choose.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of todd
>> glassey
>> Sent: 14 February 2012 17:43
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions
>>
>> 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
>>> [email protected]
>>> 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
>> [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
