>non-laywer here, > >The IETF is not an ISP and does not accordingly have safe harbor privileges. Junior Lawyer here. A quick look at the law, or even the Wikipedia article about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act) reveals that the DMCA refers to "online service providers" which in context means whoever runs the server hosting the content. That would be some combination of the IETF and AMS. If someone served AMS with a DMCA complaint, the options are basically that they remove the allegedly infringing material, or that the party providing the material to them, who might be the IETF or the I-D author, provide a counternotice that the material is not infringing. In either case, AMS is off the hook, but in the latter case, the IETF would probably have to defend if the party sending the original notice decided to sue. The IETF may well be able to argue that it too is a conduit just hosting the I-D's since I-Ds are posted by individuals using an automated process, but that is the kind of argument that makes lawyers wealthy, no matter who finally wins. As far as I am aware, there's never been a DMCA notice for an I-D, and with any luck there never will be, but in practice, a reasonable policy is that if a proper DMCA notice (one that contains all six of the required elements) arrives about an I-D, take it down unless the I-D author provides a counternotice and indemnifies the IETF. R's, John