On May 9, 2012, at 12:28 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Yoav,
At 00:44 09-05-2012, Yoav Nir wrote:
What the IETF writes in its policy amounts to a plea to users to
pretty please send only factual information. I don't know that it
makes a difference as to who is liable if the information turns out
to be non-factual.
Section 3 text mentions several paths for the issue, i.e.
responsibility lies with the working group chair with escalation to
area directors. Paragraph 2 and 3 discusses about that. The issue
which predates this draft is mentioned in the message at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71484.html
Do you know any IETF participant who is dumb enough to send a public
request for sanctions? :-)
Dean Anderson often linked to his website:
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/ (also loads of fun without the "People"
path). IANAL but this does sound like libel.
More recently, but not related to IPR issues, during the last IETF quite a few
of our prominent members were calling for sanctions (removal of posting
privileges) after some of the IETF.Fact.Check posts.
That can affect the individual's carrier
path in the IETF and in the corporate world. Some IETF participants
might even ask lawyers to take action. Watching "Behind enemy lines"
(disambiguation required) might be instructive in this context.
At the end of the day, this draft is simply a matter of having an RFC
for those who might find the information helpful. Sometimes all one
can do is to say "pretty please".
I'll +1 this draft as it stands.
I'm fine with it as it is. I just hope the IETF is not held responsible for
postings by individuals.