> On Mar 24, 2017, at 12:27 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > IANAL either, but it seems to me that Jari's note suggests a > more basic question that is almost independent of jurisdictional > issues. Suppose the IETF (or whomever) receives a subpoena that > names individuals or companies in a way that might be > unfortunate, contain implicit accusations that might be > completely unfounded, or even, in the opinion of those parties > if they knew, were libelous, and suppose it directs IETF to not > disclose the subpoena in any way. Without offering anything > resembling a legal opinion, it probably makes a difference > whether the subpoena is associated with a law enforcement action > rather than the civil actions for which I think the policies > were designed. I know of no case of a civil subpoena that included a gag order & yes, the procedures were deigned for civil cases (like patent prior art) Scott