There has been some discussion on this list about draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-00. Thanks for the input. The conversation seems to be partitioned into: - discussion of sanctions and how to apply them - discussion of measures that can be taken to help people to adhere to BCP79 - discussion about whether the IETF's IPR policy needs further work. I think it is important to have all three of these discussions, but in this thread I am focussing only on sanctions. Within the sanctions conversation I see three broad responses: 1. Sanctions must be applied very flexibly, taking into account all circumstances and without hard rules. 2. Sanctions must be "algorithmically" and repeatedly/predictably deduced from a full analysis of the situation. 3. Detailed rules are not needed, but there must be a clear line that defines "bad" breakage of BCP79 and a well-defined sanction to use in all such cases. Furthermore, there is some debate about who should/can be responsible for applying sanctions. The authors of the draft are of the opinion that in the case of work produced by a working group, the disruption caused by breaking BCP79 is directly to "the smooth running of the WG". The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions, on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the IETF. The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in making those decisions at the request of the Chair or when circumstances warrant such an intervention. The authors also believe that all attempts to codify "programmatic" mechanisms or red lines will always be subject to special cases, interpretation, and leniency. We would like to hear more from you about these points and about anything else you have found in the I-D. Thanks Adrian (and Pete) _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf