IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [admin-discuss] Consultation on restricting participant access to IETF systems

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 30 June 2022 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8435DC147920 for <admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 12:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.857
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.857 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=P2zaBmMt; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Xj6Zwm8p
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U3FYzOGPeKlq for <admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 12:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83299C14CF1F for <admin-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 12:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 41808 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2022 19:16:23 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=a34e.62bdf687.k2206; bh=mYQerw8zcqLX2qSasEEdCOZv6+xBF4C20xUFbYeQNQA=; b=P2zaBmMtPie/+hUFyW4l1fSQ6PH2CIdT/oiRj1kr0EtaMmDa3Xz8RyGCbyObeGp5W9FgBJlcyga5bDeKV4gmT5yy2W2UfAsN2ut/OHzCFrmuTy3t7uvrE0crORgcVJqcxDJeXXbg+OguawSf8OkDmrItmCjijDoAad7EAaSmHy5uk7zN5h/b24MdXw1x/ZCAF3FJAALr1ayna424yT3LuOGFyc8bsG2PB1RmNOUs62Dq5vJ3Ou/0k3i2xAkeU4xVBZwCUbdj7VoV5u40Q9c7jc2QN9PpSxXgQnSPc4Q5JgHYA/t6Nt9qV1CEJXygzHGtLKr6m4PkIUB/omrNS48kzg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=a34e.62bdf687.k2206; bh=mYQerw8zcqLX2qSasEEdCOZv6+xBF4C20xUFbYeQNQA=; b=Xj6Zwm8pwzMxiJaKFKcfNG7d6AVa+AWnIHrKQBttGbOBrhiVh2lwwWYBmizOo61I0Pehh9S0PTA1xFTfkIA0lQXWJ3brmfHbL82PlgdbAUr++vDAlrdOoKzi3cLegoOWO986QwG/7VKljTO9yvhtwohPRDY2m+k3sS1AGiRDU/uL91fwvGwRIYYBZQqeZLa07t0DeSf0UQy0XLaWHK6Z7RxWY92apz9CcTZcEOyu2iHKwczFu1rcMuOzsljpOjA8Ji1eTUsqlUZU7Ph3KACB3l6Q3HJydA4p1Zy1hFAarXUiYB0B1lNuWTun9j4DrirAls2PApaZl6fSQDD1qkSF1Q==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 30 Jun 2022 19:16:23 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id EC28444B4D9B; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:16:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:16:22 -0400
Message-Id: <20220630191622.EC28444B4D9B@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: admin-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <848347e3-94e6-03a1-9aa0-45478ac3cfa5@gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/admin-discuss/6LuNLSLEjKh-ezRRbuHKcZqjQho>
Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] Consultation on restricting participant access to IETF systems
X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues <admin-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/admin-discuss>, <mailto:admin-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/admin-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:admin-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:admin-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/admin-discuss>, <mailto:admin-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:16:31 -0000

It appears that Brian E Carpenter  <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> said:
>> On 30/06/2022 00:19, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> we won't have any choices if faced with a court order
>> 
>> I'm not sure whether that's true. 
>
>I was referring to the action ordered by the court.
>
>(In England, the action could in theory include the awful thing known as a super-injunction, in which
>case transparency itself might be forbidden by the court.)

Those happen in the US, too, where they're known as gag orders.

>I agree that where there are choices, they should be debated.

Of course, but I don't think anyone should delude themselves that
courts will tolerate us screwing around while we decide what we feel
like doing.  Twitter and Facebook make legal challenges to court
orders but they are a lot bigger and richer than we are and have
phalanxes of lawyers on staff.

If our decision is to resist court orders I want to bs sure we understand what we
are telling the LLC and our lawyers to do.

R's,
John

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status