Hi SM, > >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 Yes. I've been watching those threads, and I think that some other WGs are thinking of following similar procedures. > >Furthermore, there is some debate about who should/can be responsible for > >applying sanctions. [snip] > 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". Yes. > I suggest removing the above as prolific inventors should pay more > attention to BCP 79. I'm inclined to agree with you. Others feel that there may be some mitigation in this case. By listing the point, we are giving the WG chairs the opportunity to consider it. They may deduce that it provides an excuse, no excuse, or exacerbates the case. > 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? Yes. That is certainly my intention in this document. All violations of BCP 79 are cause to consider sanctions. The severity of the case may be judged by many factors, and I suppose that the level of "participation" may be one of these factors. I am hoping that Section 2.1 makes the first point clear, and Appendix A the second point. Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf