On 24 Mar 2017, at 14:39, John Levine wrote:
In article <FB90DAC1-5822-4A33-9A06-C07B61CA9847@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you
write:
Like others, I wonder about the prudence of naming ISOC (and
certainly
ISOC in the US) as the recipient for legal service. I'd like to hear
from lawyers about other possibilities.
It's been like this for well over a decade. Remember that a major
reason to set up ISOC was to have an organizational home for the IETF.
I will say, as someone who was on the IAB when BCP 101 was written, that
I favored a tight financial coupling and a more minimal organizational
coupling. There are times when being somewhat separate is a good thing.
For reasons I can explain if anyone cares, there is no way that ISOC
could move out of the US.
As luck would have it, I never suggested that.
Nearly all of the subpoenas that the IETF gets are stupendously boring
and routine, and I think this would be a poor addition to the IESG's
crowded schedule.
And hence my earlier comment that I expect that "most of the time IETF
leadership ends up simply nodding at counsel, the IAOC, the IAD, etc.".
I am someone that has believed for quite some time that the IAB and IETF
chairs themselves really do not need to be members of the IAOC, as I
think it's a waste of resources, and BCP 101 should be updated to allow
for at least delegates. And I equally expect that most members of the
IESG will summarily ignore most subpoenas that fly by. But having them
made available is not a burden, and even having a pro-forma agenda item
on the IESG's agenda where Amy can say, "Any questions or discussions of
the subpoenas? [5 second pause] Next on the agenda..." is really not a
significant burden. Most of the time, the agenda item will be
exceedingly boring...until it's not. I can certainly imagine the kind of
case where the cursory read of a subpoena causes an AD to say, "Whoa!
Someone needs to go to court to get that quashed!"
...there's no compelling reason for
the IESG to know who it is.
Whenever someone says, "there's no need for you to know this
information", when not preceded by a long explanation of an additional
harm one is incurring by simply knowing the piece of information,
particularly when "you" is the leadership of an organization, it sends
up a giant red flag for me. The leadership should have available every
piece of information available to them, and they can choose whether or
not they need to examine it or act on it. But to withhold information
without compelling reason is deeply problematic. Unless you spend your
time in a SCIF, the burden is to show why someone should not have
information available to them, not the other way around.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478