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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

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 not be 
>applied until the chair/AD/whoever reasonably determines that the 
>policy has in fact been violated. But that's not what the sentence 
>above is talking about. I don't want participants to think that they 
>can't bring up the issue of violation without some sort of "burden 
>of proof". Can we figure out some words that express both things?

Here's some text for the entire paragraph:

    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.  The area director or
    working group chair will discuss the matter with the IETF participant and
    determine whether the policy has in fact been violated.  Thus, when
    sanctions are called for, working group chairs will be the first actors
    when there is an active working group involved in the technical work, and
    area directors will be the first actors in other cases.

I avoided the "including a short summary of the relevant facts and 
events" as it comes out as "burden of proof".

Regards,
-sm