On 25/03/2017 05:32, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > >> 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 IANAL but there are those "superinjunctions" that sometimes allegedly occur in English civil libel cases where even the existence of the superinjunction is secret, under penalty of contempt of court. And many countries do not have a generic right of free speech. So, never say never :-(. Brian > > & yes, the procedures were deigned for civil cases (like patent prior art) > > Scott > >