Re: ipr-wg was Proposal to cease accepting IPR disclosures by unstructured email

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, July 18, 2022 13:11 +0000 "Bradner, Scott"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> On Jul 18, 2022, at 9:07 AM, Alan Clark
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ...
> 
>> IMHO it would be ideal to make participation in IETF
>> conditional upon early disclosure 
> 
> it is if the participant personally knows of the IPR or
> should, because of his or her job, know of the IPR and has
> been for quite a while

Scott, yes.  But to split an important hair, that prohibition
depends almost entirely on the honesty and good will of the
would-be participant.  If someone decides to conceal IPR they
know about personally, we normally don't find out until much
later.  To the best of my knowledge, we have never withdrawn a
standard because we found out later that the disclosure rules
were not followed even if we might start an effort to supercede
it with something less encumbered.  We have never un-published
an RFC because of disclosure failures, much less tried to sue a
participant for not complying with the rules [1].  Even the most
severe punishments we have for bad behavior --  AFAICT, RFC 3683
revocation of posting rights -- may not be sufficient to prevent
"participation".  IMO (YMMD) there are no real penalties under
the Code of Conduct and the scope of the Ombudsteam does not
include lying to the IETF rather than bad acts against
individuals.  If someone with the authority to do so (IESG?
Trustees? -- not clear to me that there is such an entity)
decided that someone was evil for not disclosing as required, it
isn't clear that there is any documented basis for telling them
they could not register for and attend an IETF meeting.

So, that requirement depends a great deal on good will,
understanding of the provisions, and good intentions.   Without
knowing what Alan by "make ... conditional", if the late
disclosure is deliberate and a deliberate violation of those
rules, the requirement is, AFAICT, fairly toothless.

I don't have an opinion as to whether that could be fixed
without risking even more damage to the IETF.

best,
   john

[1] if one thinks the Note Well and surrounding materials
constitute an actual contract between the participant and the
IETF I presume that would be, in theory, possible.  But IANAL.