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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

On 2012-05-09 11:57, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I don't even own a television on which to watch people pretending to be
> lawyers...
> 
> Both Brian and Yoav are making a worthwhile point, but I don't see how this I-D
> changes what happens on IETF mailing lists as normal business. It is perfectly
> possible for the IETF lists to be used to libel someone with or without this
> I-D.

Absolutely.

> Brian makes a good point that the text should make it clear what level of
> back-up we expect for such a claim. In writing the original text I had assumed
> that everyone behaves like a reasonable adult when participating in the IETF -
> gosh, am I naif?

Any reply I gave to that would most likely be libellous ;-)

> Will fold in text close to Brian's suggestion.

Thanks.

   Brian
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
>> 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.
> 
>