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 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 that there is a violation that is 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 such an accusation to me, trust me, the first question I am going to ask is "why do you believe that". If the answer is "can't you see they have shifty eyes", it will end there. I'm looking for at minimum that a named party has evidence 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]