Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07
2008-10-15 15:27:28
At 8:03 AM -0400 10/15/08, Daniel Feenberg imposed structure on a
stream of electrons, yielding:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 14 October 2008 13:31:06 -0400 der Mouse
<mouse(_at_)Rodents-Montreal(_dot_)ORG> wrote:
Because of the importance of the Internet in general, I would
suggest that RFCs include a legal considerations section for aiding
lawmakers, where relevant.
I really don't think it's a good idea for us technonerds to be giving
legal advice. Just think of the technical advice that lawyers would
give us, and then ask yourself why ours would be any better.
Besides, which jurisdiction(s) would the legal considerations be for?
I guess the point would be to direct future legislation, rather
than to try to reflect current legislation. But, I don't think that
RFCs are a great place to lobby for legislation.
In many jusrisdictions, and in many court cases, the judge will need
to establish the "customs of the trade". RFCs can be introduced to
help inform the judge of these customs. So an RFC can have legal
significance, even if it isn't legal advice, or law itself. We
wouldn't want the RFC to contain material that would mislead a judge
in such a situation.
It isn't a matter of writing law that is valid for every country on
earth, but of correctly damping the expectations of spammers for
spam delivery, so that judges will understand that the spammer has
"no reasonable expectation" of delivery. Of course statutes can
override custom, but that is not the business of the RFC.
All true.
More broadly, over the past 15 years of casual observation I've seen
about a dozen incidents of content being excluded from an
RFC-in-development because it stood some chance of being perceived as
legal advice or as an attempt to inject particular policy preferences
into a "standard" that could be waved at judges or lawmakers. I'm far
from an IETF "insider" but it has been my distinct impression that
the norms in RFC development have long (and wisely) been averse to
entanglement with law. This is particularly true of Standards Track
RFC's, which frequently get everything not strictly technical carved
off of them in development, sometimes to other types of RFC's.
Beyond that, it is clear to me that any grand plan to add a section
to RFC's generally is far outside the scope of the ASRG or the IRTF.
this would be something NOT to be advocated here in the narrow
context of this one document, which is devised as a technical
standard with a BCP companion covering related issues of consensus
opinion rather than objective fact. A campaign to change the way
RFC's coexist with legal systems would belong more at the ISOC layer
than here.
--
Bill Cole
bill(_at_)scconsult(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07, John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07, der Mouse
- Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07, Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07, Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07,
Bill Cole <=
- Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07, David Nicol
- Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07 OT, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07, Franck Martin
|
|
|