Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy
draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-07

[Ballot comment]
Not sure this worth doing but should we state that the rules also apply to remote participants in the contribution paragraph?  Maybe add the following as a new second sentence:

  Remote participants as well as those participating in person at
  IETF meetings are bound by this definition.

Also should we add jabber in there to the first sentence?

[Ballot discuss]
Mister farrresnickel,

  It is important to note that each individual IETF participant has a
  choice under the IETF's IPR policy.  If the individual is unwilling
  or unable to disclose the existence of relevant IPR in a timely
  manner, that individual has the option to refrain from participating
  in IETF discussions about the technology covered by the IPR.


In the above sentence, I have an issue with "participating in IETF discussions", which IMHO sends the wrong message.
For example: I know of an IPR from my company, which I don't plan on disclosing (whatever the reason), and I'm actually fine because I don't participate in the discussions. In other words, I'm fine because I read the emails but don't reply, I listen to the (virtual) WG meeting but don't say a word, I listen to the side discussions at the IETF but don't say a word.

This also contradicts your text:

    The policies set out in [BCP79] state that each individual
    participant is responsible for disclosing or ensuring the disclosure
    of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) where:

      - they are aware of the IPR
      - the IPR is relevant to the IETF work they are participating in
      - the IPR is owned by the individual or by a company that employs or
        sponsors the individual's work.


I believe that your intent of your paragraph comes from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#section-7

I propose to reuse "must not contribute to or participate in IETF activities" from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#section-7 since "activities" is a broader term covering: emails, discussions, meetings, virtual meetings, etc...
So actually RFC3979 has got the sentence right.

OLD:

  It is important to note that each individual IETF participant has a
  choice under the IETF's IPR policy.  If the individual is unwilling
  or unable to disclose the existence of relevant IPR in a timely
  manner, that individual has the option to refrain from participating
  in IETF discussions about the technology covered by the IPR.

NEW:

  It is important to note that each individual IETF participant has a
  choice under the IETF's IPR policy.  If the individual is unwilling
  or unable to disclose the existence of relevant IPR in a timely
  manner, that individual has the option to refrain from contributing to and participating
  in IETF activities about the technology covered by the IPR.

[Ballot comment]
The policies set out in [BCP79] state that each individual
  participant is responsible for disclosing or ensuring the disclosure
  of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) where:

  - they are aware of the IPR
  - the IPR is relevant to the IETF work they are participating in
  - the IPR is owned by the individual or by a company that employs or
    sponsors the individual's work.

I think that you should put an "and" after each list item.

IANA has reviewed draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-06-04. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the
  behavior of all IETF participants with respect to Intellectual
  Property Rights (IPR) about which they might reasonably be aware.

  The IETF takes conformance to these IPR policies very seriously.
  However, there has been some ambiguity as to what the appropriate
  sanctions are for the violation of these policies, and how and by
  whom those sanctions are to be applied.

  This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of
  potential actions that may be taken within the IETF community.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Informational, as is proper since its explaining things
and the headers are right.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the
  behavior of all IETF participants with respect to Intellectual
  Property Rights (IPR) about which they might reasonably be aware.

  The IETF takes conformance to these IPR policies very seriously.
  However, there has been some ambiguity as to what the appropriate
  sanctions are for the violation of these policies, and how and by
  whom those sanctions are to be applied.

  This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of
  potential actions that may be taken within the IETF community.

Working Group Summary

  This is not a product of an IETF WG. There was no
  big controversy but there were comments when this was
  discussed on the IETF discuss list.

Document Quality

  This is not something for which you write code. We do have
  process experience that directly lead to its production however.

Personnel

  Stephen Farrell is the document shepherd.
  Russ Housley is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I have read the document and believe it is ready for
publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No. The document was discussed on the IETF discuss list.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes. Explicitly.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

There is no WG. There seemed to be consensus for its publication
on the IETF discuss list.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Nothing.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

References are fine.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There are none.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A.