In good faith that you believe, or potentially believe, that .... In message <4FAB2563.3090309@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pete Resnick writes: > On 5/9/12 6:40 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > >> I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue of v > iolation without some sort of "burden of proof". > >> > > Hmm. > > > > I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet another wa > y to DOS a WG with IPR. If a person believes that there is a violation that i > s worthy of the name, they should probably see to it that it gets discussed, > but I don't see how they make that determination without having at least some > data or report that can be verified. If someone in my working group brings s > uch an accusation to me, trust me, the first question I am going to ask is "w > hy do you believe that". If the answer is "can't you see they have shifty eye > s", it will end there. I'm looking for at minimum that a named party has evid > ence to support it. > > I completely agree. That's why I asked that we figure out some text that > does both things: Indicate that it's OK to say that you believe someone > crossed the line and explain your reasons for that belief, but not > require that it be a proven fact before you can even broach the subject. > I can see how the current text might be too lax, but I thought Brian's > text was too stringent. Looking for a happy medium. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx