Re: [IAOC] Feedback Requested on Draft Fees Policy

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> In theory yes, a signed document would be sufficient.
>
> In practice it would then require an expert witness at $400/hr to
> explain that it meant it was authentic.
>

The depositions are typically to state that the RFC's etc. posted on
line are, to the best of our knowledge and ability, the true RFC's,
etc. So, there would likely still need to be depositions stating that,
signed documents or no.

Remember the basic way that subpoenas work : The IETF is served with a
legal document _demanding_ something, backed by the force of law.

Yes, we typically then point out that much of what they want is
available on line, and frequently negotiate with opposing counsel to
moderate demands for depositions,  etc., but, in the end, we propose,
the judge and opposing counsel dispose. That  won't change.

Regards
Marshall

> The schedule of fees seems a reasonable response to a real cost being
> imposed on the organization.
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Richard L. Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> [assuming you mean the "go look it up" idea]
>>
>> We have the technology.  Surely a CMS signed object (or even just an HTTPS download) would provide adequate authentication that it came from the IETF.  And it doesn't seem like we would have a problem providing authenticated documents to the world.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>>
>>> great idea - just does not jive with the legal system which often need authenticated
>>> copies of documents
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
>>>>>> The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be found
>>>>>> at: <http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html>
>>>>
>>>> Fine idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/