Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 24 Mar 2017, at 14:15, Michael Richardson wrote:

Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> To deal with the second issue, it seems to me that we should address > the first issue by making it crystal clear in the procedures that the > subpoena must go to the entire IESG, not just the chair, and that > whatever action is taken on the subpoena be approved by the IESG (with > advice of counsel). If the entire IESG gets a copy of the subpoena, and > our procedures make it clear to any court or other issuing authority > that more than one person outside of their jurisdiction will be seeing
    > the subpoena, perhaps that will mitigate the second issue.

Is your goal here to dissuade them from placing gag orders on the subpeona,
or is it to make it clear that their subpoena should omit unnecessary
identifying information, as we will post it publically.

Certainly I hope to dissuade gag orders, and certainly I want to make it clear that they should omit unnecessary identifying information, but note that I did not say that "we will post it publicly". We may, or we may not, post it publicly (cf. JCK's message), but either way I'd like it to be crystal clear that at least some persons over whom the issuer has no jurisdictional control (e.g., because the court is outside of the US and members of the IESG are US citizens, or vice versa) will be getting copies of the subpoena. So, gag orders will at best be advisory and it would be wise to omit unnecessary identifying information.

(My un-legally-educated guess here is that publicly posting something that is subject to a gag order, even by someone not normally subject to a particular jurisdiction, is a bit of a game of legal "chicken", since that person might want to enter that jurisdiction some day. But this is where I'd like like to leave it to our leadership to take advice of counsel and make their best judgment about what is right for the community. What I don't want is to have procedures that make it easy for any particular jurisdiction to dictate terms to us.)

pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]