Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>Like others, I wonder about the prudence of naming ISOC (and certainly 
>ISOC in the US) as the recipient for legal service. I'd like to hear 
>from lawyers about other possibilities.

It's been like this for well over a decade. Remember that a major
reason to set up ISOC was to have an organizational home for the IETF.
For reasons I can explain if anyone cares, there is no way that ISOC
could move out of the US.

>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).

Nearly all of the subpoenas that the IETF gets are stupendously boring
and routine, and I think this would be a poor addition to the IESG's
crowded schedule.  They typically ask for a certified copy of RFCs or
I-Ds, or for the date when various documents were published.  Read
them and snooze here:

https://iaoc.ietf.org/subpoenas.html

I know none of the details of the subpoena that led to this discussion
but I would be pretty surprised if weren't along the lines of asking
for documentation that a certain person was present at meeting
sessions, in the form of blue sheets or meeting recordings.  That
still doesn't sound like something the IESG needs to deal with.

As Klensin noted, just because someone is named does not mean that he
or she is a suspect in a case, and there's no compelling reason for
the IESG to know who it is.

R's,
John