On 2012-05-10 03:18, Pete Resnick wrote:
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 violation without some sort of burden of proof.
Hmm.
I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet
another way
At 20:09 09-05-2012, Randy Bush wrote:
participants should not call for sanctions. they should point out to wg
chairs, or ADs FACTS about questinable activity, non-disclosure, ...
Yes.
and so forth. i hope that this is not a witch hunt. that it is not
creating courts and guillotines. we
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Fair enough. I can't agree with SM though - as for appeals under RFC 2026,
the person bringing up an issue really has to provide a factual summary,
exactly to avoid witch hunts. It can be very short:
Hi, I noticed that US Patent 12345 was filed in March 2010, and
On 5/10/12 2:30 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
There are times when it is difficult to keep assuming that people are
acting in a responsible fashion given the high levels of
unpleasantness. The situation can be such that simple gentle paths
are ignored.
This is IMO perhaps more a reflection of
I'd like to be reassured that this has been carefully reviewed
by the IETF counsel and the IETF Trust. In particular I would
be interested in its possible interaction with the IETF's
liability insurance.
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
they believe has
I think that regardless of how it's worded, the real question is whether
liability falls to the person who sent the email (to a public mailing list) or
the IETF. The difference between believe and shown seems minor in
comparison.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
Yoav,
IANAL, but as far as I know libel suits are normally against individuals
(or media outlets such as newspapers). The defence against a libel
suit in the British courts, the most popular jurisdiction for
international libel suits, is factual accuracy. Therefore, I think
the draft should state
I am not a lawyer either, but I think it depends on jurisdiction whether a
mailing list will be considered as a media outlet or merely a conduit.
What the IETF writes in its policy amounts to a plea to users to pretty please
send only factual information. I don't know that it makes a
Hi Yoav,
At 00:44 09-05-2012, Yoav Nir wrote:
What the IETF writes in its policy amounts to a plea to users to
pretty please send only factual information. I don't know that it
makes a difference as to who is liable if the information turns out
to be non-factual.
Section 3 text mentions
On May 9, 2012, at 12:28 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Yoav,
At 00:44 09-05-2012, Yoav Nir wrote:
What the IETF writes in its policy amounts to a plea to users to
pretty please send only factual information. I don't know that it
makes a difference as to who is liable if the information turns out
to
Hi,
I don't even own a television on which to watch people pretending to be
lawyers...
Both Brian and Yoav are making a worthwhile point, but I don't see how this I-D
changes what happens on IETF mailing lists as normal business. It is perfectly
possible for the IETF lists to be used to libel
Hi Adrian,
On 2012-05-09 11:57, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
I don't even own a television on which to watch people pretending to be
lawyers...
Both Brian and Yoav are making a worthwhile point, but I don't see how this
I-D
changes what happens on IETF mailing lists as normal business. It
Hi Yoav,
At 03:37 09-05-2012, Yoav Nir wrote:
loads of fun without the People path). IANAL but this does sound like libel.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01967.html
More recently, but not related to IPR issues, during the last IETF
quite a few of our prominent
On 5/9/12 1:51 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
they believe has violated the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by
sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list.
That seems reasonable, but publishing such
At 13:19 09-05-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
Shown how and by whom? I think you're conflating two things here.
Any participant can *call* for sanctions to be applied to anyone
they believe has violated the policy. No libel in saying that I
believe you have violated the policy. The sanctions ought
I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue of
violation without some sort of burden of proof.
Hmm.
I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet another way to
DOS a WG with IPR. If a person believes that there is a violation that is
worthy of
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone they
believe has violated the IETF's IPR policy.
oh goodie! let's have witch trials. why bother with accusations, let's
just burn everyone below layer nine at the stake!
plonk. that's two political crap stirrers in a week.
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 violation
without some sort of burden of proof.
Hmm.
I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet another way to DOS a WG with IPR.
If a person believes
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
ok, ok, i put my foot in, so now have to pay
Not conforming to the IETF's IPR policy undermines the work of the
IETF, and sanctions should be applied against offenders.
s/should/may/
3. Who May Call For and Apply Sanctions
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to
On 5/9/12 9:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i hope that this is not a witch hunt. that it is not
creating courts and guillotines. we should assume people want to act in
a responsible fashion and provide simple gentle paths to be taken when
that assumption fails.
Well,
21 matches
Mail list logo
