Subject: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:08:28 -0000

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
- discussion about whether the IETF's IPR policy
  needs further work.

I think it is important to have all three of these discussions, but in this
thread I am focussing only on sanctions.

Within the sanctions conversation I see three broad responses:

1. Sanctions must be applied very flexibly, taking into account all
circumstances and without hard rules.

2. Sanctions must be "algorithmically" and repeatedly/predictably deduced from a
full analysis of the situation. 

3. Detailed rules are not needed, but there must be a clear line that defines
"bad" breakage of BCP79 and a well-defined sanction to use in all such cases.

Furthermore, there is some debate about who should/can be responsible for
applying sanctions.

The authors of the draft are of the opinion that in the case of work produced by
a working group, the disruption caused by breaking BCP79 is directly to "the
smooth running of the WG".  The Chair has the responsibility and the authority
to make decisions, on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of
working group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the IETF.
The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in making those
decisions at the request of the Chair or when circumstances warrant such an
intervention.

The authors also believe that all attempts to codify "programmatic" mechanisms
or red lines will always be subject to special cases, interpretation, and
leniency. 

We would like to hear more from you about these points and about anything else
you have found in the I-D.

Thanks Adrian (and Pete)

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:06:46 -0800

>   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

>decisions at the request of the Chair or when circumstances warrant such an

Ok.

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".

I suggest removing the above as prolific inventors should pay more 
attention to BCP 79.  There is the following excuse:

     "Is there a reason for the individual forgetting the existence of
      the IPR (for example, it was filed many years previous to the work
      in the IETF)?"

which can be used.

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?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:12:39 -0000

Hi SM,

> 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

[snip]

> That should be "the individual has invented".

Yes.

> 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.

> 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

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:42:35 -0800

> 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

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> 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.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:52:36 -0000

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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of todd
> glassey
> Sent: 14 February 2012 17:43
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions
>

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:24:57 -0500

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