All - the IAOC has asked me to respond to this list:
I have taken a look at the proposed Section 5.4.1 and the commentary from various people:
5.4.1 Subpoenas and Other Legal Requests
All subpoenas and other legal requests received by the IAOC or the IETF will be published on the IAOC website together with their responses.
What's important to consider are potential protective orders that may cover material relating to litigation in which IETF receives a subpoena. As you know, and can see from the subpoenas that are already posted on the IETF web site, some courts (and the ITC) issue protective orders limiting the use and disclosure of materials produced during discovery. These orders typically protect the discloser's confidential information (e.g., if IETF were asked to disclose confidential information (e.g., salary or credit card info, or sensitive private communications), it could invoke the terms of the protective order to ensure that this information would not become part of the public trial record, and would be seen only by some limited set of persons (e.g., the judge, legal counsel and perhaps some party representatives or experts). To my knowledge, IETF has never been asked to disclose confidential information, but this could certainly change in the future. If that happened, and IETF did disclose this information under protective order, you would probably not want to disclose it publicly on the subpoena web page.
The second issue to consider is whether something disclosed TO IETF in the context of a subpoena or other request may itself by covered by a protective order. Again, I'm not aware that this has ever happened, but it is possible. For example, if documents were requested from IETF and in order to understand what was being requested we needed to see some other (confidential) documents produced during the case, we might receive material subject to a protective order. If so, it should clearly not be posted on the web site.
I think there's a relatively simple fix for these concerns, which is to tweak Section 5.4.1 by adding the words, ", unless disclosure is prohibited by law, court order, contract or other legal commitment or would compromise personal, financial or other sensitive information held by IETF."
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2014-02-06 04:56, Randy Bush wrote:A "we have problems here" response for me would trigger a request to
>>>>> B. Proposed Additions to the Plan
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> 5.4.1 Subpoenas and Other Legal Requests
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> All subpoenas and other legal requests received by the IAOC
>>>>> >>>> or the IETF will be published on the IAOC website together
>>>>> >>>> with their responses.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Reason for Change: Greater transparency.
>>>> >>> Some such requests may include the requirement that they not be
>>>> >>> revealed.
>>> >>
>>> >> they should be rejected out of hand. "we can not read your email"
>> >
>> > Does that work for National Security Letters too?
>
> i was thinking of them specifically. and yes, i have gone to jail for
> my political beliefs in the past and would do so again.
review under what jurisdiction IETF operate.
We are a standards body that writes documents.
Not an operator or such that deals with operational issues.
Patrik