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