Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Well... we will distribute it outside of the court's jurisdiction, using
unencrypted email (where it might be subject to access to information
process...), and then discuss it at an IETF telechat where anyone may dial
in. This is what I meant... we aren't going to try to keep it very secret.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature