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

["Bradner, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

fully agree - enforcement, if any, is up to the courts

Scott

> On Jul 18, 2022, at 12:37 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --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  To the best of my knowledge, we have never withdrawn a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.
>