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: 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. > >