Thanks Jari. I was absolutely contributing to missing the forest for the
trees. Sorry for that. My apparent vehemence notwithstanding, it's not
the particular mechanism I care about; it's that we end up with a
structure where the IETF maintains control over its own affairs, and
decides for itself what is (or is not) important to it. You are exactly
right that we need to figure out what's important first, and figure out
mechanism to make that happen second.
Discussions of what lawyers should or should not do will be taken to the
pub.
pr
On 25 Mar 2017, at 12:23, Jari Arkko wrote:
John, Pete,
I think you’re diving deep into the details of one particular aspect
of this problem. That’s fine, but I wanted to point out that the
overall
issues are broader. Even on the aspect of creating pushback for
authorities generating unnecessary subpoenas, there are multiple
approaches, document distribution within the leadership is just one
way.
And then there are other issues, worrying about the privacy
of the people mentioned in any subpoena, re-examining if we
could tune what information we retain at the IETF, rewriting the
algorithm on what our staff should do automatically and when
they need to alert the leadership, looking at what other organisations
have done in these kinds of situations, and so on.
FWIW, I think we at the legal committee and leadership want to be on
listening and learning mode about this issue for a while before
jumping into specific ways to address the issues. Keep those thoughts
coming!
Jari
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478