< draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-04.txt		draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt >
	Network Working Group A. Farrel		Network Working Group A. Farrel
	Internet Draft Juniper Networks		Internet Draft Juniper Networks
	Category: Informational P. Resnick		Category: Informational P. Resnick
	Qualcomm		Qualcomm
	Expires: 26 September 2012 26 March 2012		Expires: 25 October 2012 25 April 2012
	Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy		Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy
	draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-04.txt		draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the		The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the
	behavior of all IETF participants with respect to Intellectual		behavior of all IETF participants with respect to Intellectual
	Property Rights (IPR) about which they might reasonably be aware.		Property Rights (IPR) about which they might reasonably be aware.
	The IETF takes conformance to these IPR policies very seriously.		The IETF takes conformance to these IPR policies very seriously.
	However, there has been some ambiguity as to what the appropriate		However, there has been some ambiguity as to what the appropriate
	sanctions are for the violation of these policies, and how and by		sanctions are for the violation of these policies, and how and by
	skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the		The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the
	behavior of all IETF participants with respect to intellectual		behavior of all IETF participants with respect to intellectual
	property about which they might reasonably be aware. These are		property about which they might reasonably be aware. These are
	documented in [BCP79] and are frequently brought to the attention of		documented in [BCP79] and are frequently brought to the attention of
	IETF participants. In short, the policies state that each individual		IETF participants. The policies state that each individual
	participant is responsible for disclosing or ensuring the disclosure		participant is responsible for disclosing or ensuring the disclosure
	of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of which they are aware, that		of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) where:
	are relevant to the work with which they participate through the
	IETF, and where the IPR is owned by a company that employs or		- they are aware of the IPR
	sponsors the individual's work.		- the IPR is relevant to the IETF work they are participating in
			- the IPR is owned by a company that employs or sponsors the
			individual's work.
	Conformance to these IPR policies is very important, and there is a		Conformance to these IPR policies is very important, and there is a
	need to understand both what sanctions may be applied to participants		need to understand both what sanctions may be applied to participants
	who violate the policies, and who may apply those sanctions.		who violate the policies, and who may apply those sanctions.
	This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of		This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of
	potential actions that may be taken within the IETF community. All		potential actions that may be taken by the IETF community. All of
	of these sanctions are currently available in IETF processes, and two		these sanctions are currently available in IETF processes, and two
	instances of violation of the IPR policy have been handled using some		instances of violation of the IPR policy have been handled using some
	of the sanctions listed. As explicitly called out in Section 4,		of the sanctions listed. As explicitly called out in Section 4,
	a posting rights (PR) action described in [RFC2418] as updated by		a posting rights (PR) action described in [RFC2418] as updated by
	[RFC3934], and in [RFC3683] is an applicable sanction for the case of		[RFC3934], and in [RFC3683] is an applicable sanction for the case of
	a breach of the IETF's IPR policy.		a breach of the IETF's IPR policy.
	This document does not consider the parallel, but important issue of		This document does not consider the parallel, but important issue of
	ways to actively promote conformance with the IETF's IPR policy.		ways to actively promote conformance with the IETF's IPR policy.
	That topic is discussed in [Promote].		That topic is discussed in [Promote].
	skipping to change at page 3, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 22 ¶
	A "contribution" is also defined in [BCP79] and includes Internet-		A "contribution" is also defined in [BCP79] and includes Internet-
	Drafts, emails to IETF mailing lists, presentations at IETF meetings,		Drafts, emails to IETF mailing lists, presentations at IETF meetings,
	and comments made at the microphone during IETF meetings.		and comments made at the microphone during IETF meetings.
	The timeliness of disclosure is very important within [BCP79]. No		The timeliness of disclosure is very important within [BCP79]. No
	precise definition of "timeliness" is given in [BCP79] and it is not		precise definition of "timeliness" is given in [BCP79] and it is not
	the purpose of this document to do so. But it is important to		the purpose of this document to do so. But it is important to
	understand that the impact that an IPR disclosure has on the smooth		understand that the impact that an IPR disclosure has on the smooth
	working of the IETF is an inverse function of its timeliness. Thus,		working of the IETF is an inverse function of its timeliness. Thus,
	a disclosure made on a published RFC will be more disruptive to the		a disclosure made on a published RFC is very likely to be more
	IETF than such a disclosure on an early revision of an individual		disruptive to the IETF than such a disclosure on an early revision of
	submission of an Internet-Draft.		an individual submission of an Internet-Draft.
	Third-party disclosures may also be made by anyone who believes that		Third-party disclosures may also be made by anyone who believes that
	IPR may exist.		IPR may exist.
	It is important to note that each individual IETF participant has a		It is important to note that each individual IETF participant has a
	choice under the IETF's IPR policy. If the individual is unwilling		choice under the IETF's IPR policy. If the individual is unwilling
	or unable to disclose the existence of relevant IPR in a timely		or unable to disclose the existence of relevant IPR in a timely
	manner, that individual has the option to refrain from participating		manner, that individual has the option to refrain from participating
	in IETF discussions about the technology covered by the IPR		in IETF discussions about the technology covered by the IPR
	2.2. How Attention is Drawn to These Responsibilities		2.2. How Attention is Drawn to These Responsibilities
	The IETF draws the attention of all participants to the IPR policy		The IETF draws the attention of all participants to the IPR policy
	[BCP79] through the "Note Well" statement on the IETF web pages		[BCP79] through the "Note Well" statement on the IETF web pages
	[URLNoteWell], presentations at working group and plenary meetings,		[URLNoteWell], presentations at working group and plenary meetings,
	and in printed materials handed out at IETF meetings, as well as in		and in printed materials handed out at IETF meetings, as well as in
	the boilerplate text appearing in each Internet-Draft and RFC.		the boilerplate text appearing in each Internet-Draft and RFC.
			[Promote] suggests a number of additional ways in which the attention
			of IETF participants can be drawn to the IPR policy.
	2.3. How IPR Disclosures are Made		2.3. How IPR Disclosures are Made
	The procedure for filing IPR disclosures is shown on the IETF's web		The procedure for filing IPR disclosures is shown on the IETF's web
	site at [URLDisclose]. Third-party disclosures may also be made by		site at [URLDisclose]. Third-party disclosures may also be made by
	email to the IETF Secretariat or via the web page.		email to the IETF Secretariat or via the web page.
	Note that early disclosures or warnings that there might be IPR on a		Note that early disclosures or warnings that there might be IPR on a
	technology may also be made.		technology may also be made.
	2.4. How Working Groups Consider IPR Disclosures		2.4. How Working Groups Consider IPR Disclosures
	In the normal course of events, a working group that is notified of		In the normal course of events, a working group that is notified of
	the existence of IPR must make a decision about whether to continue		the existence of IPR must make a decision about whether to continue
	with the work as it is, or whether to revise the work to attempt to		with the work as it is, or whether to revise the work to attempt to
	avoid the IPR claim. This decision is made on the working group's		avoid the IPR claim. This decision is made on the working group's
	mailing list using normal rough consensus procedures. However, the		mailing list using normal rough consensus procedures. However,
	working group does not discuss the applicability of an IPR claim nor		discussions of the applicability of an IPR claim or of the
	the appropriateness or merit of the IPR licensing terms as these are		appropriateness or merit of the IPR licensing terms are outside the
	outside the scope of the technical work of the WG. The IPR situation		scope of the WG. The IPR situation is considered by working group
	is considered by working group participants as the document advances		participants as the document advances through the development process
	through the development process [RFC2026], in particular at key		[RFC2026], in particular at key times such as adoption of the
	times such as adoption of the document by the working group, and		document by the working group, and during last call.
	during last call.
	It needs to be clearly understood that the way that the working group		It needs to be clearly understood that the way that the working group
	handles an IPR disclosure is distinct from the sanctions that may be		handles an IPR disclosure is distinct from the sanctions that may be
	applied to the individuals who violated the IETF's IPR policy. That		applied to the individuals who violated the IETF's IPR policy. That
	is, the decision by a working group to, for example, entirely re-work		is, the decision by a working group to, for example, entirely re-work
	an Internet-Draft in order to avoid a piece of IPR that has been		an Internet-Draft in order to avoid a piece of IPR that has been
	disclosed should not be seen as a sanction against the authors.		disclosed should not be seen as a sanction against the authors.
	Indeed, and especially in the case of a late IPR disclosure, that a		Indeed, and especially in the case of a late IPR disclosure, that a
	working group decides to do this may be considered a harmful side		working group decides to do this may be considered a harmful side
	effect on the working group (in that it slows down the publication of		effect on the working group (in that it slows down the publication of
	skipping to change at page 5, line 8 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 8 ¶
	working group document editor who waits until near the publication		working group document editor who waits until near the publication
	of a document to reveal IPR of which they themselves are the author		of a document to reveal IPR of which they themselves are the author
	should be subject to more serious sanctions. These are judgments		should be subject to more serious sanctions. These are judgments
	that can be made by the working group chairs and area director.		that can be made by the working group chairs and area director.
	This topic forms the bulk of the material in Sections 5 and 6.		This topic forms the bulk of the material in Sections 5 and 6.
	3. Who May Call For and Apply Sanctions		3. Who May Call For and Apply Sanctions
	Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone		Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
	they believe has violated the IETF's IPR policy. Normally, however,		they believe has violated the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by
	the working group chairs and area directors assume the responsibility		sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list. Normally,
	for ensuring the smooth-running of the IETF and for the enforcement		however, the working group chairs and area directors assume the
	of IETF policies including the IPR policy. Thus, when sanctions are		responsibility for ensuring the smooth-running of the IETF and for
	called for, working group chairs will be the first actors when there		the enforcement of IETF policies including the IPR policy. Thus,
	is an active working group involved in the technical work, and area		when sanctions are called for, working group chairs will be the first
	directors will be the first actors in other cases.		actors when there is an active working group involved in the
			technical work, and area directors will be the first actors in other
			cases.
	Working group chairs are already empowered to take action against		Working group chairs are already empowered to take action against
	working group participants who flout the IPR rules and so disrupt		working group participants who flout the IPR rules and so disrupt
	the smooth running of the IETF or a specific working group, just as		the smooth running of the IETF or a specific working group, just as
	they can take such action in the face of other disruptions.		they can take such action in the face of other disruptions.
	The working group chairs have the responsibility to select the		The working group chairs have the responsibility to select the
	appropriate actions since they are closest to the details of the		appropriate actions since they are closest to the details of the
	issue. Where there is no working group involved or where making the		issue. Where there is no working group involved or where making the
	decision or applying the sanctions is uncomfortable or difficult for		decision or applying the sanctions is uncomfortable or difficult for
	skipping to change at page 6, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 28 ¶
	specific documents or across the whole working group.		specific documents or across the whole working group.
	g. Re-positioning of the individual's attribution in a document to		g. Re-positioning of the individual's attribution in a document to
	the "Acknowledgements" section with or without a note explaining		the "Acknowledgements" section with or without a note explaining
	why they are listed there and not in the "Authors' Addresses"		why they are listed there and not in the "Authors' Addresses"
	section (viz. the IPR policy violation). This action can also be		section (viz. the IPR policy violation). This action can also be
	recorded by the area director in the datatracker entries for the		recorded by the area director in the datatracker entries for the
	documents concerned.		documents concerned.
	h. Deprecation or rejection of the individual document (whether it		h. Deprecation or rejection of the individual document (whether it
	be an RFC or Internet-Draft) or cesation of work on the affected		be an RFC or Internet-Draft) or cessation of work on the affected
	technology.		technology.
	i. Application of a temporary suspension of posting rights to a		i. Application of a temporary suspension of posting rights to a
	specific mailing list according to the guidelines expressed in		specific mailing list according to the guidelines expressed in
	[RFC2418] and updated by [RFC3934]. Such bans are applied to		[RFC2418] and updated by [RFC3934]. Such bans are applied to
	specific to individual working group mailing lists at the		specific to individual working group mailing lists at the
	discretion of the working group chairs for a period of no more		discretion of the working group chairs for a period of no more
	than 30 days.		than 30 days.
	j. The removal of posting privileges using a Posting Rights Action		j. The removal of posting privileges using a Posting Rights Action
	(PR Action) as per [RFC3683]. This is a more drastic measure		(PR Action) as per [RFC3683]. This is a more drastic measure
	that can be applied when other sanctions are considered		that can be applied when other sanctions are considered
	insufficient or to have been ineffective. When a PR action is in		insufficient or to have been ineffective. When a PR action is in
	place, the subjects have their posting rights to particular IETF		place, the subjects have their posting rights to a particular IETF
	mailing list removed for a period of a year (unless the action is		mailing list removed for a period of a year (unless the action is
	revoked or extended), and maintainers of any IETF mailing list		revoked or extended), and maintainers of any IETF mailing list
	may, at their discretion and without further recourse to		may, at their discretion and without further recourse to
	explanation or discussion, also remove posting rights		explanation or discussion, also remove posting rights
	PR actions are introduced by an area director and are considered		PR actions are introduced by an area director and are considered
	by the IETF community and the IESG in order to determine IETF		by the IETF community and the IESG in order to determine IETF
	consensus.		consensus.
	In many cases, it may be appropriate to notify a wider IETF community		In many cases, it may be appropriate to notify a wider IETF community
	skipping to change at page 8, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 35 ¶
	8. IANA Considerations		8. IANA Considerations
	This document makes no requests for IANA action.		This document makes no requests for IANA action.
	9. Acknowledgments		9. Acknowledgments
	Thanks to Lou Berger, Ross Callon, Stewart Bryant, Jari Arkko, and		Thanks to Lou Berger, Ross Callon, Stewart Bryant, Jari Arkko, and
	Peter Saint-Andre for comments on an early version of this document.		Peter Saint-Andre for comments on an early version of this document.
	Thanks to Subramanian Moonesamy and Tom Petch for their comments on		Thanks to Subramanian Moonesamy and Tom Petch for their comments on
	the work. Thanks to Dan Wing, Tony Li, and Steve Bellovin for		the work. Thanks to Dan Wing, Tony Li, and Steve Bellovin for
	discussions.		discussions. Thanks to Stephen Farrell for providing a thorough
			review as document shepherd.
	10. Authors' Addresses		10. Authors' Addresses
	Adrian Farrel		Adrian Farrel
	Juniper Networks		Juniper Networks
	adrian@olddog.co.uk		adrian@olddog.co.uk
	Pete Resnick		Pete Resnick
	Qualcomm		Qualcomm
	presnick@qualcomm.com		presnick@qualcomm.com
	skipping to change at page 9, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 8 ¶
	[URLIESGIPR]		[URLIESGIPR]
	http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty		http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty
	[URLIPR] http://www.ietf.org/ipr/policy.html		[URLIPR] http://www.ietf.org/ipr/policy.html
	[URLNoteWell] http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html		[URLNoteWell] http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
	Appendix A. Guidance on Selecting and Applying Sanctions		Appendix A. Guidance on Selecting and Applying Sanctions
	As discussed in Section 6, the selection of sanctions needs to be a		As discussed in Section 6, the selection of sanctions needs to be a
	carefully made judgment call considering all circumstances and		carefully made judgment call considering all relevant circumstances
	events. This Appendix provides a list of things that might form part		and events. This Appendix provides a list of things that might form
	of that judgment.		part of that judgment.
	This list of considerations is for guidance and is not prescriptive		This list of considerations is for guidance and is not prescriptive
	or exhaustive, nor does it imply any weighting of the considerations.		or exhaustive, nor does it imply any weighting of the considerations.
	- How long has the participant been active in the IETF?		- How long has the participant been active in the IETF?
	- Was there some exceptional circumstance?		- Was there some exceptional circumstance?
	- Are there special circumstances that imply that the individual		- Are there special circumstances that imply that the individual
	would not have seen or understood the pointers to and content of		would not have seen or understood the pointers to and content of
	[BCP79]?		[BCP79]?
	- How late was the disclosure? Is the document already a working		- How late was the disclosure? Is the document already a working
	group document? How many revisions have been published? How much		group document? How many revisions have been published? How much
	time has elapsed? Have last calls be held? Has the work been		time has elapsed? Have last calls be held? Has the work been
	published as an RFC?		published as an RFC?
	- Was the individual a minor contributor to the IETF work, or are		- Was the individual a minor contributor to the IETF work, or are
End of changes. 14 change blocks.
	34 lines changed or deleted		42 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/