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: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: 09 May 2012 09:52 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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 >> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-06-04. Exceptionally, comments may >> be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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. >