In good faith that you believe, or potentially believe, that
....
In message <4fab2563.3090...@qualcomm.com>, 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: ma...@isc.org
