On Wed, 05 May 2004 09:50:17 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Barry is right about plaintifs using the BCP in littigation,
I would also expect to see the IETF drawn into littigation if
it published a BCP that endorsed collateral damage or keeping
the identity of a blacklist secret to avoid littigation.
Can you give an example of any other IETF BCP or any other IETF document
used in litigation? For example was any ISP ever sued for not following
guidelines in RFC 3013 (BCP 46) - "Recommended Internet Service Provider
Security Services and Procedures"?
It is to desireable and to be expected that courts will in due course rely
on industry practices and standards in adjudicating acceptable
behavior. We should not be shy of it but instead encourage it.
Approved and deprecated practices are what we need to encourage
and eventually get into the judicial system. Every industry does this
and it is long past time for ours. It is nothing to fear.
Regarding 'collateral damage': while the reality of its usefulness is
clear, this discussion usefully points to the possible injurious emotive
overtones. A more useful phraseology might be that employed
(with a long legal history) in the environmental pollution field.
Stringent measures against polluters (which is what spam-enablers
are) are well received in public and legally sanctioned. (See
some possible wording at <http://www.camblab.com/misc/univ_std.txt>).
Please let everyone be clear that a blacklist does not prevent anyone
from receiving service. A blacklist USER prevents service. A
blacklist author is not injuring anyone. This extremely important
legal point may have to be highlighted in our documentation. It
is one reason (among others) why the author of a blacklist
standard is not vulnerable to a claim for damages.
Jeffrey Race
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg