RE: recourse if our rules are violated?

["David B Harrington" <dbharrington at comcast.net>]

<sarcasm>
Oh good.
I had been concerned that the Internet Appeals Board (IAB) was
thinking they had time to work things like architecture ...

</sarcasm>

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf at jck.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:12 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; Scott O. Bradner
> Cc: ipr-wg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
> 
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, 10 April, 2007 09:30 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
> <brc at zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 2007-04-10 01:27, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> >> Joel expressed my opinion before I got around to it
> > 
> > Ditto. I think any procedure that amounted to the IETF
> > making, or appearing to make, a judgment of bad faith
> > would expose the IETF to a world of hurt.
> 
> Gentlemen, I agree, which is why I made the point as tentatively
> as I did.  _However_ I suggest that this situation is not very
> different from the ones we make about excluding people from
> mailing lists.  To make that relationship more clear, take it as
> given that it is impossible to reach a conclusion of bad faith
> if someone created a late disclosure and claimed ignorance once.
> How about if the same party does it a second time, possibly with
> a slightly different excuse, with a different draft?   How about
> the tenth time?  And, if the answer is "no, can't reach such a
> conclusion", what is a PR-action about besides cutting someone
> off who clearly and repeatedly is performing actions that
> interfere with the successful progress of the standards process?
> 
>       john
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 



_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg