I agree with Adrian. Individuals come to the IETF, not companies. Sure they are employed by companies, but they also have to follow the rules stated in BCP79. I am really tired of the myriad of excuses people have given in the past about why they have not been able to comply. Its a really, really simple thing to read and understand the rules about the IETF's IPR policy BEFORE you submit a draft (or speak at a meeting), and WG chairs go out of their way to give people a number of warnings and reminders about this. If after all of that you disagree, then go home. --Tom > Todd, > > You may or may not be right about whether an individual can make a decision to > disclose. In my experience they often can't, but do have the power to > request/implore their employer to disclose. > > On the other hand, they *do* have the power to not participate. > > BCP79 offers this choice and I make no comment about which is preferable. > However, it is clear from BCP79 that individuals have the choice and the > responsibility to choose. > > Thanks, > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of todd >> glassey >> Sent: 14 February 2012 17:43 >> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions >> >> On 2/12/2012 10:12 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>> Hi SM, >> >> So isnt the real issue that of informed consent? If you dont know that >> someone else has already existing work is it their fault for not telling >> the IETF? >> >> If so then there would also need to be some form of process identical to >> this for verifying that the people participating hold legal power of >> attorney pertaining to that work for their sponsors, or they cannot make >> any 'management decisions' pertaining to any project. >> >> The misunderstanding in the IETF BCP78 and BCP79 documents is that >> one-size fits all for IETF participants. It simply cannot - In fact many >> participants are there to work on processes and efforts for their >> sponsors who have no legal power of attorney for their sponsors what so >> ever. This is part of the myriad of misrepresentations that the IETF and >> its parent ISOC are still trying to get the rest of the world to swallow >> IMHO. >> >> Todd >> >>> >>>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> -- >> Todd S. Glassey >> This is from my personal email account and any materials from this >> account come with personal disclaimers. >> >> Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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