IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Fri, 24 March 2017 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3659C1294CF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02p9JDcizeIE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D24C120727 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1068F3D55BFE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:32:59 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0qP-ImoGDAhn for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:32:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 402D33D55BED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:32:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:32:57 -0400
References: <149033560170.22298.4992160350083194861.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2k27eg61o.wl-randy@psg.com> <7B9DC018-C522-492C-824D-6643E32A146D@sobco.com> <m2h92ig4yv.wl-randy@psg.com> <33DAE0FB5054D5E9B195CFCA@PSB>
To: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <33DAE0FB5054D5E9B195CFCA@PSB>
Message-Id: <D85AC54E-71CA-4700-9AC2-2923E5DB705C@sobco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ex0_eW3WVIn2Azx11-CJIFM5GJM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:33:01 -0000

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 12:27 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> IANAL either, but it seems to me that Jari's note suggests a
> more basic question that is almost independent of jurisdictional
> issues.  Suppose the IETF (or whomever) receives a subpoena that
> names individuals or companies in a way that might be
> unfortunate, contain implicit accusations that might be
> completely unfounded,  or even, in the opinion of those parties
> if they knew, were libelous, and suppose it directs IETF to not
> disclose the subpoena in any way.  Without offering anything
> resembling a legal opinion, it probably makes a difference
> whether the subpoena is associated with a law enforcement action
> rather than the civil actions for which I think the policies
> were designed.

I know of no case of a civil subpoena that included a gag order

& yes, the procedures were deigned for civil cases (like patent prior art)

Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email