Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Brian E Carpenter
I'd like to be reassured that this has been carefully reviewed by the IETF counsel and the IETF Trust. In particular I would be interested in its possible interaction with the IETF's liability insurance. Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone they believe has

RE: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Yoav Nir
I think that regardless of how it's worded, the real question is whether liability falls to the person who sent the email (to a public mailing list) or the IETF. The difference between believe and shown seems minor in comparison. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Yoav, IANAL, but as far as I know libel suits are normally against individuals (or media outlets such as newspapers). The defence against a libel suit in the British courts, the most popular jurisdiction for international libel suits, is factual accuracy. Therefore, I think the draft should state

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Yoav Nir
I am not a lawyer either, but I think it depends on jurisdiction whether a mailing list will be considered as a media outlet or merely a conduit. What the IETF writes in its policy amounts to a plea to users to pretty please send only factual information. I don't know that it makes a

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread SM
Hi Yoav, At 00:44 09-05-2012, Yoav Nir wrote: What the IETF writes in its policy amounts to a plea to users to pretty please send only factual information. I don't know that it makes a difference as to who is liable if the information turns out to be non-factual. Section 3 text mentions

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Yoav Nir
On May 9, 2012, at 12:28 PM, SM wrote: Hi Yoav, At 00:44 09-05-2012, Yoav Nir wrote: What the IETF writes in its policy amounts to a plea to users to pretty please send only factual information. I don't know that it makes a difference as to who is liable if the information turns out to

RE: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Adrian Farrel
Hi, I don't even own a television on which to watch people pretending to be lawyers... Both Brian and Yoav are making a worthwhile point, but I don't see how this I-D changes what happens on IETF mailing lists as normal business. It is perfectly possible for the IETF lists to be used to libel

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Hi Adrian, On 2012-05-09 11:57, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi, I don't even own a television on which to watch people pretending to be lawyers... Both Brian and Yoav are making a worthwhile point, but I don't see how this I-D changes what happens on IETF mailing lists as normal business. It

Re: a favor from the list about Jon Postel

2012-05-09 Thread Joe Touch
On May 8, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: On Tue, 8 May 2012, Bob Hinden wrote: https://www.facebook.com/jon.postel I just tried going to this page and it says it doesn't exist. Has the problem been fixed? Yes it has. Many thanks to those on this list - and other lists - who

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread SM
Hi Yoav, At 03:37 09-05-2012, Yoav Nir wrote: loads of fun without the People path). IANAL but this does sound like libel. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01967.html More recently, but not related to IPR issues, during the last IETF quite a few of our prominent

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Pete Resnick
On 5/9/12 1:51 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone they believe has violated the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list. That seems reasonable, but publishing such

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread SM
At 13:19 09-05-2012, Pete Resnick wrote: Shown how and by whom? I think you're conflating two things here. Any participant can *call* for sanctions to be applied to anyone they believe has violated the policy. No libel in saying that I believe you have violated the policy. The sanctions ought

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Fred Baker
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

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Randy Bush
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone they believe has violated the IETF's IPR policy. oh goodie! let's have witch trials. why bother with accusations, let's just burn everyone below layer nine at the stake! plonk. that's two political crap stirrers in a week.

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Pete Resnick
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 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

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Mark Andrews
In good faith that you believe, or potentially believe, that In message 4fab2563.3090...@qualcomm.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

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Randy Bush
ok, ok, i put my foot in, so now have to pay Not conforming to the IETF's IPR policy undermines the work of the IETF, and sanctions should be applied against offenders. s/should/may/ 3. Who May Call For and Apply Sanctions Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

2012-05-09 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 5/9/12 9:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote: i hope that this is not a witch hunt. that it is not creating courts and guillotines. we should assume people want to act in a responsible fashion and provide simple gentle paths to be taken when that assumption fails. Well,