On Aug 2, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:07 AM 8/2/12, Eggert, Lars wrote: > >> Looks good to me, but I agree with whoever suggested to increase the fees. I think you could easily double or triple them. > > I agree with Lars and the suggestion that the fees could be higher. > I don't think this can be a profit center; as I understand it, the judge in any case will rule on the reasonableness of any fees. Here's text from Rule 45 of the (U.S.) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "A non-party required to produce documents or materials is protected against significant expense resulting from involuntary assistance to the court. This provision applies, for example, to a non-party required to provide a list of class members. The court is not required to fix the costs in advance of production, although this will often be the most satisfactory accommodation to protect the party seeking discovery from excessive costs. In some instances, it may be preferable to leave uncertain costs to be determined after the materials have been produced, provided that the risk of uncertainty is fully disclosed to the discovering party. See, e.g., United States v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982)." Note: as I read it, "the court" fixes the fees. I'm not a lawyer, but given that Jorge wrote the text in the draft procedure I assume that the fee he specified is considered reasonable in today's courts. I don't know that a higher one would be accepted; I'll defer to Jorge to answer. (He doesn't tell me how much crypto to put in; I won't tell him how to deal with courts...) I'm more concerned about "This procedure assumes that the procedure and technology experts will volunteer their time as IETF participants." A lot of us give a lot of time on technical matters, because we think it's good for the Internet and -- to be honest -- because our employers think it benefits them. It's quite unclear that spending many hours on something that benefits a third party is in the interests of the Internet, and I could easily see some employers objecting to their employees getting dragged into a legal matter. (Only slightly hypothetical scenario: Party A sues Party B on patent matters, and wants IETF data. Party C, for whom an AD works, is probably in the same position on those patents as is B, but A sued only B for tactical reasons. Can/should that AD work on the subpoena? Would that AD even know B's and C's positions?) Also, I wonder -- is there any potential liability accruing to such procedure and technology experts? Does the IETF's liability policy cover them, if they're not currently among the covered leadership? --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb