RE: Violation of IETF process (was: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard)

At 07:25 26-01-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>I have not made any statement about what the company has done.

Ok.

>I don't view *disclosing* as a problem here. In fact disclosure is to be
>encouraged.

I too don't view disclosing as a problem here.  It is possible to 
compare the statement with other such statements and see the differences.

>My issue is with the individual. BCP 79 is very clear about individual
>responsibilities wrt IPR that they are aware of.

Yes.

>It is the individual who breaks the IETF's IPR policy if they make 
>contributions
>when there is IPR that they are aware of that is not disclosed in a timely
>fashion.

Yes.

>Questions that should not be asked should not, by definition, be asked.
>I wonder if you are concerned about corporate and anti-trust issues.

I am concerned that individuals who are sponsored by their company 
will end up being the escape goat.  I am concerned that the Note Well 
might end up being ignored.  If individuals do not understand the 
Note Well, it is unlikely that they will understand any future 
antitrust policy.

>I am also interested in the discussion about whether moving an author's name
>from the front page to the Acknowledgements (with an explanation) 
>would have an
>impact on discussions of IPR policy violation in court. This will need
>professional legal advice - my feeling was that previous I-D versions would

Yes.

>But I come back to this point because I think it is important: the violation
>here is of the individual contributor's responsibility under BCP79.

That is the point being discussed.

Regards,
-sm