On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 09:05:32PM +0000, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote: > I get nervous when we IETF non lawyers start inventing and writing > what we think is good policy and pseudo-legal requirements. It’s > very tempting, and I admit to giving in occasionally myself to the > temptation, but the problem is that there is existing legal > requirements in our situation that are established in Delaware, the > legal home of the IETF LLC, and a big risk of we arm chair legal > experts take in setting policy is that it may cause some legal issues > for us or the directors down the road. The obvious retor to this sort of argument is: I get nervous when someone uses pseudo-legal language to shut down discussion without actual, specific references to law. I suppose perhaps you're not trying to shut down discussion. But really, besides "we need lawyers", what else are you saying? > It may conflict with currently Delaware law. It may conflict with When it comes to interfacing with the law, obviously we'll need legal counsel. That does not preclude discussion of what properties we want for IETF/ISOC legal entities. Quite the contrary, as we have to discuss something with legal counsel, what should that be if we don't discuss it amongst ourselves first? > future Delaware law or changes to current Delaware law. Even having Future law? I mean, unless you think lawyers have a crystal ball, we should all ignore this argument. > it and not following it to the letter may cause legal conflicts for > the IETF LLC or its Board members. Clearly. Nico --
