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. 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? Will fold in text close to Brian's suggestion. 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: 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.