Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Fri, 24 March 2017 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.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 AFAA6129882 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qti.qualcomm.com
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 A5JLSFPZKf32 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44A231294FD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1490391121; x=1521927121; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=AZIuliR4rqoWPBdL0PWXjpJmxAkuKMUKcJmWclQ76VQ=; b=N7JoBRpW/64UXplBjrX5wI2vQow61J9QckDk6yTYD6o1XJhC25vVgm3L Mc1y4EVW9M25oxdzAp1BYuBhr0EYINrrqfPPCPHA8obELp6kTZQIMtWkV OFU3vQ5S/1hRB+dogKmYO6VQ83N+7HGZzQt8LS41IrpiNlM1v87u9afzO M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,216,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="367943406"
Received: from unknown (HELO ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com) ([10.53.140.106]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2017 14:32:00 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5800,7501,8477"; a="925685149"
X-MGA-submission: MDEGBoKIt3Oul1v/a3QxvpgPe4imlPiuEYGZSDwCwMyyX3Boa7yTm2Uxlr5KLVmB9tBjVgTS/2OK+KBlOwVuBnTDKsClqKphB5gT+CzW8dogytbJB7JCUTbvFRdUrd9ZTlpbnW6gzNliwmlw05KRAwXz
Received: from nasanexm01f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.32]) by ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 24 Mar 2017 14:31:59 -0700
Received: from [10.64.118.210] (10.80.80.8) by NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:31:57 -0700
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
CC: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:31:56 -0500
Message-ID: <5DAE09F6-D7DE-47B4-ABA6-BC9A92DDEE4E@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170324193951.85037.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20170324193951.85037.qmail@ary.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; markup="markdown"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8]
X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01C.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.83) To NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/p7Phm7C36820OW5EV1tv_-MOrMY>
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 21:32:04 -0000

On 24 Mar 2017, at 14:39, John Levine wrote:

> In article <FB90DAC1-5822-4A33-9A06-C07B61CA9847@qti.qualcomm.com> 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.

I will say, as someone who was on the IAB when BCP 101 was written, that 
I favored a tight financial coupling and a more minimal organizational 
coupling. There are times when being somewhat separate is a good thing.

> For reasons I can explain if anyone cares, there is no way that ISOC
> could move out of the US.

As luck would have it, I never suggested that.

> 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.

And hence my earlier comment that I expect that "most of the time IETF 
leadership ends up simply nodding at counsel, the IAOC, the IAD, etc.". 
I am someone that has believed for quite some time that the IAB and IETF 
chairs themselves really do not need to be members of the IAOC, as I 
think it's a waste of resources, and BCP 101 should be updated to allow 
for at least delegates. And I equally expect that most members of the 
IESG will summarily ignore most subpoenas that fly by. But having them 
made available is not a burden, and even having a pro-forma agenda item 
on the IESG's agenda where Amy can say, "Any questions or discussions of 
the subpoenas? [5 second pause] Next on the agenda..." is really not a 
significant burden. Most of the time, the agenda item will be 
exceedingly boring...until it's not. I can certainly imagine the kind of 
case where the cursory read of a subpoena causes an AD to say, "Whoa! 
Someone needs to go to court to get that quashed!"

> ...there's no compelling reason for
> the IESG to know who it is.

Whenever someone says, "there's no need for you to know this 
information", when not preceded by a long explanation of an additional 
harm one is incurring by simply knowing the piece of information, 
particularly when "you" is the leadership of an organization, it sends 
up a giant red flag for me. The leadership should have available every 
piece of information available to them, and they can choose whether or 
not they need to examine it or act on it. But to withhold information 
without compelling reason is deeply problematic. Unless you spend your 
time in a SCIF, the burden is to show why someone should not have 
information available to them, not the other way around.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478