IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 24 March 2017 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 C479F127011 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 tE-qfFs605Ri for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41DAE127A91 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B802009E; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:38:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75BA2636E0; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:15:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request
In-Reply-To: <FB90DAC1-5822-4A33-9A06-C07B61CA9847@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <149033560170.22298.4992160350083194861.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FB90DAC1-5822-4A33-9A06-C07B61CA9847@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:15:18 -0400
Message-ID: <25630.1490382918@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SuydxHzNUoj1jf7AiQUdUpsUsMc>
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 19:15:21 -0000

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
    > To deal with the second issue, it seems to me that we should address
    > the first issue by making it crystal clear in the procedures that the
    > subpoena must go to the entire IESG, not just the chair, and that
    > whatever action is taken on the subpoena be approved by the IESG (with
    > advice of counsel). If the entire IESG gets a copy of the subpoena, and
    > our procedures make it clear to any court or other issuing authority
    > that more than one person outside of their jurisdiction will be seeing
    > the subpoena, perhaps that will mitigate the second issue.

Is your goal here to dissuade them from placing gag orders on the subpeona,
or is it to make it clear that their subpoena should omit unnecessary
identifying information, as we will post it publically.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email