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

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

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 be non-factual.
> 
> Section 3 text mentions several paths for the issue, i.e. 
> responsibility lies with the working group chair with escalation to 
> area directors.  Paragraph 2 and 3 discusses about that.  The issue 
> which predates this draft is mentioned in the message at 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71484.html
> 
> Do you know any IETF participant who is dumb enough to send a public 
> request for sanctions? :-)  

Dean Anderson often linked to his website: http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/ (also loads of fun without the "People" path). IANAL but this does sound like libel.

More recently, but not related to IPR issues, during the last IETF quite a few of our prominent members were calling for sanctions (removal of posting privileges) after some of the IETF.Fact.Check posts.

> That can affect the individual's carrier 
> path in the IETF and in the corporate world.  Some IETF participants 
> might even ask lawyers to take action.  Watching "Behind enemy lines" 
> (disambiguation required) might be instructive in this context.
> 
> At the end of the day, this draft is simply a matter of having an RFC 
> for those who might find the information helpful.  Sometimes all one 
> can do is to say "pretty please".
> 
> I'll +1 this draft as it stands.

I'm fine with it as it is. I just hope the IETF is not held responsible for postings by individuals.