Hi,
I don't even own a television on which to watch people pretending to be
lawyers...
Both Brian and Yoav are making a worthwhile point, but I don't see how this I-D
changes what happens on IETF mailing lists as normal business. It is perfectly
possible for the IETF lists to be used to libel someone with or without this
I-D.
Brian makes a good point that the text should make it clear what level of
back-up we expect for such a claim. In writing the original text I had assumed
that everyone behaves like a reasonable adult when participating in the IETF -
gosh, am I naif?
Will fold in text close to Brian's suggestion.
Thanks,
Adrian
I am not a lawyer either, but I think it depends on jurisdiction whether a
mailing
list will be considered as a media outlet or merely a "conduit".
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.
On May 9, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yoav,
IANAL, but as far as I know libel suits are normally against individuals
(or media outlets such as newspapers). The defence against a libel
suit in the British courts, the most popular jurisdiction for
international libel suits, is factual accuracy. Therefore, I think
the draft should state the need for factual evidence.
And to be clear, there are plenty of precedents for libels originating
outside the UK leading to successful suits in the UK courts, if they
have been received in the UK via the Internet.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2012-05-09 08:07, Yoav Nir wrote:
I think that regardless of how it's worded, the real question is whether
liability
falls to the person who sent the email (to a public mailing list) or the IETF.
The
difference between "believe" and "shown" seems minor in comparison.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: 09 May 2012 09:52
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt>
(Sanctions
Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational
RFC
I'd like to be reassured that this has been carefully reviewed by the IETF
counsel and the IETF Trust. In particular I would be interested in its
possible
interaction with the IETF's liability insurance.
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
they believe has violated the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by
sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list.
That seems reasonable, but publishing such a belief without having the
wording checked by a libel lawyer might be risky. I think the draft should
state
that a call for sanctions should be based on factual evidence and not on
"belief".
How about
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
shown to have violated the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by
sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list, including a
a short summary of the relevant facts and events.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2012-05-07 22:56, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider the following document:
- 'Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy'
<draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt> as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2012-06-04. Exceptionally,
comments may
be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please
retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the
behavior of all IETF participants with respect to Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) about which they might reasonably be aware.
The IETF takes conformance to these IPR policies very seriously.
However, there has been some ambiguity as to what the appropriate
sanctions are for the violation of these policies, and how and by
whom those sanctions are to be applied.
This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of
potential actions that may be taken within the IETF community.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions/ball
ot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.