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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

	In good faith that you believe, or potentially believe, that
	....
	
In message <[e-mail]>, 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: [phone], Fax: [phone]
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]