RE: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt> (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I don't even own a television on which to watch people pretending to be
lawyers...

Both Brian and Yoav are making a worthwhile point, but I don't see how this I-D
changes what happens on IETF mailing lists as normal business. It is perfectly
possible for the IETF lists to be used to libel someone with or without this
I-D.

Brian makes a good point that the text should make it clear what level of
back-up we expect for such a claim. In writing the original text I had assumed
that everyone behaves like a reasonable adult when participating in the IETF -
gosh, am I naif?

Will fold in text close to Brian's suggestion.

Thanks,
Adrian

> I am not a lawyer either, but I think it depends on jurisdiction whether a
mailing
> list will be considered as a media outlet or merely a "conduit".
> 
> What the IETF writes in its policy amounts to a plea to users to pretty please
send
> only factual information. I don't know that it makes a difference as to who is
liable
> if the information turns out to be non-factual.
> 
> On May 9, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > Yoav,
> >
> > IANAL, but as far as I know libel suits are normally against individuals
> > (or media outlets such as newspapers). The defence against a libel
> > suit in the British courts, the most popular jurisdiction for
> > international libel suits, is factual accuracy. Therefore, I think
> > the draft should state the need for factual evidence.
> >
> > And to be clear, there are plenty of precedents for libels originating
> > outside the UK leading to successful suits in the UK courts, if they
> > have been received in the UK via the Internet.
> >
> > Regards
> >   Brian Carpenter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2012-05-09 08:07, Yoav Nir wrote:
> >> I think that regardless of how it's worded, the real question is whether
liability
> falls to the person who sent the email (to a public mailing list) or the IETF.
The
> difference between "believe" and "shown" seems minor in comparison.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Brian E Carpenter
> >> Sent: 09 May 2012 09:52
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt>
(Sanctions
> Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational
RFC
> >>
> >> I'd like to be reassured that this has been carefully reviewed by the IETF
> counsel and the IETF Trust. In particular I would be interested in its
possible
> interaction with the IETF's liability insurance.
> >>
> >>>   Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
> >>>   they believe has violated the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by
> >>>   sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list.
> >>
> >> That seems reasonable, but publishing such a belief without having the
> wording checked by a libel lawyer might be risky. I think the draft should
state
> that a call for sanctions should be based on factual evidence and not on
"belief".
> How about
> >>
> >>   Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
> >>   shown to have violated the IETF's IPR policy.  This can be done by
> >>   sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list, including a
> >>   a short summary of the relevant facts and events.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>   Brian Carpenter
> >>
> >> On 2012-05-07 22:56, The IESG wrote:
> >>> 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'
> >>>  <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt> 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
> >>> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2012-06-04. Exceptionally, comments may
> >>> be sent to [e-mail] 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/ball
> >>> ot/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
> >>
> >
> > Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.