RE: Forthcoming draft: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Richard,

I think this is exactly the right situation for gut reactions.

The I-D specifically tries to stay away from being formulaic on the application
of sanctions. IMHO the circumstances are too complex to write code to handle.
Each application of sanctions will need human judgment.

We did (under some pressure :-) include an appendix to give some high-level
guidance on "things to think about".

Bright lines and sharp axes would be nice, but even civilized nations rarely
manage to achieve that in law systems. Unfortunate executions of innocent
bystanders is to be avoided.

But I do think the IETF can handle these decisions. They are no harder than
reaching rough consensus on intractable technical issues. And there seemed to me
(when writing the I-D) to be something of a swell of opinion that supports
applying sanctions.

Please continue to massage your gut, and react some more.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Richard
> L. Barnes
> Sent: 26 January 2012 23:35
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: Re: Forthcoming draft: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions
> 
> I appreciate that there need to be disincentives to infringing the IPR policy,
but
> I'm a little wary of the idea of codifying a system of sanctions.  Mainly for
the
> sorts of "gaming the system" thinking they engender:
> -- Is the benefit of infringing worse than the cost of the sanction?
> -- If it's not sanctionable, it must be ok!
> 
> Plus, if there are sanctions, then you need a judgement process to decide when
> the sanctions will be applied.  Is the IETF set up for that?
> 
> Rather than bright lines and clear sanctions, it seems like a general culture
of
> conservatism, staying far away from things that could possibly be construed as
> violations, would be more in tune with the way other things work at the IETF.
> 
> No real answers here, just expressing a gut reaction.
> 
> --Richard
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 
> > Just a heads-up:
> >
> > Adrian Farrel and I started work on a draft to focus discussion on sanctions
that
> could be applied to violators of the IETF's IPR policy. Because of incidents
like the
> present one, we've each been asked by WG chairs and others what can be done
> in response to such violations. We've centered our draft around sanctions that
> are available under current IETF procedures, not introducing new ones. The
draft
> should be available in the I-D repository soon. We think this could usefully
> become an RFC and we would welcome discussion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > pr
> >
> > --
> > Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> > Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]