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

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

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.