On 9/3/12 18:29 , 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.
non-laywer here, The IETF is not an ISP and does not accordingly have safe harbor privileges. I doubt very much that it would be appropriate to dutifully remove content merely on the basis of a dmca takedown request. > 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. > > > In conclusion, I believe there are a number of cases where the interests > of the community are better served by being able to ask for removal from > the archive. Being able to easily repair mistakes is likely to > facilitate more free discussion and more speedy updating of I-Ds. > Yes, I'm aware that organizations other than the IETF mirror the i-ds > and some of these organizations will be less sympathetic to these > concerns. >
