Re: [IAB] Draft Fees for Processing Legal Requests Policy
Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> Thu, 02 August 2012 23:29 UTC
Return-Path: <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
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 7856A11E81CE; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nfe7J-0uvpXM; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from salak.cc.columbia.edu (salak.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C36F11E81CB; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.9.0.98] (fireball.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.13.10]) (user=smb2132 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by salak.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q72NTNlh011670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:29:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [IAB] Draft Fees for Processing Legal Requests Policy
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <59260491-B8D8-4825-BD9A-0106AC0092F0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:29:22 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7A745E18-820B-4470-A46A-5D7ADFAFA57B@cs.columbia.edu>
References: <20120802164717.20616.13622.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <23C09D95-E873-40C1-9BF5-3378290C9FD0@netapp.com> <59260491-B8D8-4825-BD9A-0106AC0092F0@gmail.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.6
Cc: Working Chairs Group <wgchairs@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, IAOC <iaoc@ietf.org>, IAB IAB <iab@iab.org>, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 23:29:27 -0000
On Aug 2, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:07 AM 8/2/12, Eggert, Lars wrote: > >> Looks good to me, but I agree with whoever suggested to increase the fees. I think you could easily double or triple them. > > I agree with Lars and the suggestion that the fees could be higher. > I don't think this can be a profit center; as I understand it, the judge in any case will rule on the reasonableness of any fees. Here's text from Rule 45 of the (U.S.) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "A non-party required to produce documents or materials is protected against significant expense resulting from involuntary assistance to the court. This provision applies, for example, to a non-party required to provide a list of class members. The court is not required to fix the costs in advance of production, although this will often be the most satisfactory accommodation to protect the party seeking discovery from excessive costs. In some instances, it may be preferable to leave uncertain costs to be determined after the materials have been produced, provided that the risk of uncertainty is fully disclosed to the discovering party. See, e.g., United States v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982)." Note: as I read it, "the court" fixes the fees. I'm not a lawyer, but given that Jorge wrote the text in the draft procedure I assume that the fee he specified is considered reasonable in today's courts. I don't know that a higher one would be accepted; I'll defer to Jorge to answer. (He doesn't tell me how much crypto to put in; I won't tell him how to deal with courts...) I'm more concerned about "This procedure assumes that the procedure and technology experts will volunteer their time as IETF participants." A lot of us give a lot of time on technical matters, because we think it's good for the Internet and -- to be honest -- because our employers think it benefits them. It's quite unclear that spending many hours on something that benefits a third party is in the interests of the Internet, and I could easily see some employers objecting to their employees getting dragged into a legal matter. (Only slightly hypothetical scenario: Party A sues Party B on patent matters, and wants IETF data. Party C, for whom an AD works, is probably in the same position on those patents as is B, but A sued only B for tactical reasons. Can/should that AD work on the subpoena? Would that AD even know B's and C's positions?) Also, I wonder -- is there any potential liability accruing to such procedure and technology experts? Does the IETF's liability policy cover them, if they're not currently among the covered leadership? --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
- Draft Fees for Processing Legal Requests Policy IETF Administrative Director
- Re: [IAB] Draft Fees for Processing Legal Request… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [IAB] Draft Fees for Processing Legal Request… Ralph Droms
- Re: [IAB] Draft Fees for Processing Legal Request… Steven Bellovin
- Re: [IAB] Draft Fees for Processing Legal Request… Eggert, Lars