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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

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 a belief without having the
> wording checked by a libel lawyer might be risky. I think the draft
> should state that a call for sanctions should be based on factual
> evidence and not on "belief". How about
>
>     Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
>     shown to have violated the IETF's IPR policy.  This can be done by
>     sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list, including a
>     a short summary of the relevant facts and events.
>    

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?

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]