ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [IAB] Draft Fees for Processing Legal Requests Policy

2012-08-02 18:29:56

On Aug 2, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:


On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:07 AM 8/2/12, Eggert, Lars wrote:

Looks good to me, but I agree with whoever suggested to increase the fees. I 
think you could easily double or triple them.

I agree with Lars and the suggestion that the fees could be higher.


I don't think this can be a profit center; as I understand it, the judge in any 
case will rule on the reasonableness of any fees.  Here's text from Rule 45 of 
the (U.S.) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

"A non-party required to produce documents or materials is protected against 
significant expense resulting from involuntary assistance to the court. This 
provision applies, for example, to a non-party required to  provide a list of 
class members. The court is not required to fix the costs in advance of 
production, although this will often be the most satisfactory accommodation to 
protect the party seeking discovery from excessive costs. In some instances, it 
may be preferable to leave uncertain costs to be determined after the materials 
have been produced, provided that the risk of uncertainty is fully disclosed to 
the discovering party. See, e.g., United States v. Columbia Broadcasting 
Systems, Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982)."

Note: as I read it, "the court" fixes the fees.  I'm not a lawyer, but given 
that Jorge wrote the text in the draft procedure I assume that the fee he 
specified is considered reasonable in today's courts.  I don't know that a 
higher one would be accepted; I'll defer to Jorge to answer.  (He doesn't tell 
me how much crypto to put in; I won't tell him how to deal with courts...)

I'm more concerned about "This procedure assumes that the procedure and 
technology experts will volunteer their time as IETF participants."  A lot of 
us give a lot of time on technical matters, because we think it's good for the 
Internet and -- to be honest -- because our employers think it benefits them.  
It's quite unclear that spending many hours on something that benefits a third 
party is in the interests of the Internet, and I could easily see some 
employers objecting to their employees getting dragged into a legal matter.  
(Only slightly hypothetical scenario: Party A sues Party B on patent matters, 
and wants IETF data.  Party C, for whom an AD works, is probably in the same 
position on those patents as is B, but A sued only B for tactical reasons.  
Can/should that AD work on the subpoena?  Would that AD even know B's and C's 
positions?)  Also, I wonder -- is there any potential liability accruing to 
such procedure and technology experts?  Does the IETF's liability pol!
 icy cover them, if they're not currently among the covered leadership?


                --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb






<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>