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: 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. >> > > Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.