Sam,
On 9/4/12 3:29 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I strongly urge the IESG to be significantly more liberal in the cases
where an I-D will be removed from the archive.
I can think of a number of cases where I'd hope that the IESg would be
cooperative:
1) the IETF recieves a DMCA take-down notice or other instrument
indicating that a third party believes an I-D infringes their copyright.
Forcing such third parties to take the IETF to court does not seem to
benefit the community.
This is knotty.
ANYONE can file a DMCA take-down notice. Following it merely provides
safe harbor and is not always in the community interest. The community
was disrupted because of what amounted to a bogus DMCA take-down notice
relating to the TZ database, when the NIH complied. The IESG should
give the people who posted the draft an opportunity to respond to the
take-down notice prior to taking any action. In the case of a WG I-D,
the IETF must take a more engaged role.
2) An author realizes that an I-D accidentally contains proprietary
information, infringes someone else's copyright, failed to go through
external release processes for the author/editor's organization, etc.
Obviously factors like how long after the I-D is submitted might need to
be considered.
It's difficult to codify policy like this in a group this large, but
except for the copyright issue in which a 3rd party may be exposed
through no fault of their own, I'd be concerned about abuse, and would
hate for us to sanction that sort of thing in text.
Eliot