At 11:08 10-02-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote:
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
The following messages are about the "help people":
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13082.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg02081.html
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.
Ok.
In Appendix A:
"- Does the large number of patents that the individual has authored
provide any level of excuse for failing to notice that one of
their patents covered the IETF work?"
That should be "the individual has invented".
I suggest removing the above as prolific inventors should pay more
attention to BCP 79. There is the following excuse:
"Is there a reason for the individual forgetting the existence of
the IPR (for example, it was filed many years previous to the work
in the IETF)?"
which can be used.
Section 6.1.2 of BCP 79 is about an IETF Participant's IPR in
Contributions by others. Should sanctions be considered if the
individual participates and does not disclose?
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf