troll protection Re: AppCache post-mortem?

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:40:58 +0100, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>  
wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:35:34 +0100, Alex Russell
>>>  On Monday, May 13, 2013, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>>> On 07/05/2013 18:52 , Tobie Langel wrote:

>>>> The group would not be producing Recs (which an IG can't do anyway)  
>>>> so it wouldn't give us better RF-protection that I can think of.
>>>
>> Yeah it would for the reasons you outlined later. The policy for IGs is
>> more robust than the "maybe when you're done I might commit" that  
>> applies in CGs.
>>
>> ...[cf CG policy]...
>>
>>> Who is this meant to protect and from what?
>>
>> Joe small W3C member, from patent trolls who wouldn't mess with people  
>> who have real portfolios and patent lawyers to match.
>
> Wait...what?
>
> This is implausible. Small members are likely to get roughed up by trolls
> only on their way to bigger game.

Yeah, that is the point. Joe small member gets a sense of security from  
the fact that the big game are in there, and are big enough that they  
have, and have probably used, the ability to do a more thorough check of  
the landscape than Joe can afford.

It's not something a mathematician would be happy with, but it is often  
good enough for people who use the concept of "the man on the Clapham  
Omnibus", even if they understand the other risks.

I don't *think* the CG policy is good enough for this, but *I* think the  
IG policy is. Of course your mileage may vary (especially on the advice of  
your lawyers…).

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 11:18:36 UTC