; i...@iab.org; IETF
Announcement List
Subject: Re: Feedback Requested on Draft Fees Policy
great idea - just does not jive with the legal system which often need
authenticated copies of documents
Scott
On Jul 20, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF
@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Feedback Requested on Draft Fees Policy
--On Friday, July 20, 2012 06:07 -0700 IETF Administrative Director
i...@ietf.org wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the
IAOC to impose fees to produce information and authenticate documents
I did it once - it took 2 or 3 hours *it was quite a while back and I do not
remember)
there were no significant expenses - the depo was in Boston my only
expense was a few hours parking - the depo was done in the office of the
law firm that was providing the IETF with pro-bono legal services
I did not do them any favor - I did the IETF a favor (as the then ISOC VP for
Standards)
Scott
On Jul 22, 2012, at 4:43 PM, John R Levine wrote:
I did it once - it took 2 or 3 hours *it was quite a while back and I do not
remember)
there were no significant expenses - the depo was in
No objection. Thank you for asking.
Just as with any project that you don't really want to take on, make
sure the price is high enough that you're willing to do it should
someone be foolish enough to pay the asking price.
Also consider adding an automatic fee escalation clause (e.g. permit
In theory yes, a signed document would be sufficient.
In practice it would then require an expert witness at $400/hr to
explain that it meant it was authentic.
The schedule of fees seems a reasonable response to a real cost being
imposed on the organization.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM,
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
In theory yes, a signed document would be sufficient.
In practice it would then require an expert witness at $400/hr to
explain that it meant it was authentic.
The depositions are typically to state that the RFC's
Yes, we typically then point out that much of what they want is
available on line, and frequently negotiate with opposing counsel to
moderate demands for depositions, etc., but, in the end, we propose,
the judge and opposing counsel dispose. That won't change.
I'd want to set the depo rate
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Yes, we typically then point out that much of what they want is
available on line, and frequently negotiate with opposing counsel to
moderate demands for depositions, etc., but, in the end, we propose,
the judge and opposing
On Jul 22, 2012, at 21:38, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
IETF volunteers will not be paid from these fees.
I've been following this discussion only with one ear, but, I can't figure out
why somebody would volunteer to do this.
Grüße, Carsten
For people with unique skills or knowledge, $800/hr is not unusual.
So long as the rate is published ahead of time, you're not going to
get much argument. (Yes, we know it's high. But we've already told
you how to download stuff yourself for free.)
Please note : out of pocket expenses (if
I did it once - it took 2 or 3 hours *it was quite a while back and I do not
remember)
there were no significant expenses - the depo was in Boston my only
expense was a few hours parking - the depo was done in the office of the
law firm that was providing the IETF with pro-bono legal services
I did not do them any favor - I did the IETF a favor (as the then ISOC VP for
Standards)
Really, if you didn't make the opposing party pay for your time, you did
them a favor. It's absolutely expected to pay hostile witnesses for their
depo time. (If nobody mentioned it, why would they offer
Yeah, with what the lawyers in the room are getting per hour, there is no
reason to volunteer as an expert wittness. Ever. Even if you are there
on behalf of the IETF, if the IETF prevails, they can only recover costs
they incurred and if they don't, make a donation.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, John R
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to subpoenas
and
other legal requests.
The IETF receives requests for information, documentation, authentication or
other
matters through
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 06:07:33AM -0700, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
Before adopting a policy the IAOC would like feedback on this before making a
decision. Comments appreciated to ietf@ietf.org by 6 August 2012.
I think this is a perfectly legitimate policy, and I support it. The
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 06:07 -0700, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be found
at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
Assuming that the IAOC has set these fees to be close to the actual
costs of servicing legal
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to
subpoenas and
other legal requests.
The IETF receives requests for
+1
Although I wonder whether radical openness would be cheaper in the long run:
Put everything online and have an auto-responder at subpo...@ietf.org that says
Go look it up yourself.
--Richard
On Jul 20, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be
found
at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
Fine idea.
great idea - just does not jive with the legal system which often need
authenticated
copies of documents
Scott
On Jul 20, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can
[assuming you mean the go look it up idea]
We have the technology. Surely a CMS signed object (or even just an HTTPS
download) would provide adequate authentication that it came from the IETF.
And it doesn't seem like we would have a problem providing authenticated
documents to the world.
On 20/07/2012 14:07, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to
subpoenas and
other legal requests.
Do it. This will dissuade trivial requests
--On Friday, July 20, 2012 06:07 -0700 IETF Administrative
Director i...@ietf.org wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by
the IAOC to impose fees to produce information and
authenticate documents in response to subpoenas and other
legal requests.
...
Before
On Jul 20, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 06:07 -0700, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be found
at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
Assuming that the IAOC has set
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be found
at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
It seems fine to me, but I would add an hourly rate for research.
For requests for e-mail, do they typically provide pointers to the
specific archive entries, or do
On 7/20/2012 7:25 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
We have the technology. Surely a CMS signed object (or even just an HTTPS
download) would provide adequate authentication that it came from the IETF.
And it doesn't seem like we would have a problem providing authenticated
documents to the
On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 7/20/2012 7:25 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
We have the technology. Surely a CMS signed object (or even just an HTTPS
download) would provide adequate authentication that it came from the IETF.
And it doesn't seem like we would have a
Richard,
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 7/20/2012 7:25 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
We have the technology. Surely a CMS signed object (or even just an HTTPS
download) would provide adequate authentication that
Marshall
Jiankang Yao
- Original Message - From: IETF Administrative Director
i...@ietf.org
To: IETF Announcement List ietf-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: i...@ietf.org; i...@iab.org; ietf@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:07 PM
Subject: Feedback Requested on Draft
...@ietf.org; i...@iab.org; ietf@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:07 PM
Subject: Feedback Requested on Draft Fees Policy
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response
I completely agree that it's reasonable to be able to recover these
costs, and trust the IAOC to set the fees to a level commensurate for
cost recovery. There's no reason why the IETF should be financially
burdened by lawsuits between external parties in which the IETF is not
a principal party to
20 jul 2012 kl. 16:09 skrev Richard L. Barnes rbar...@bbn.com:
+1
Although I wonder whether radical openness would be cheaper in the long run:
Put everything online and have an auto-responder at subpo...@ietf.org that
says Go look it up yourself.
I could think of some other things it
: 20 July 2012 15:25
To: Bradner, Scott
Cc: wgcha...@ietf.org; i...@iab.org; Scott Brim; ietf@ietf.org;
i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Feedback Requested on Draft Fees Policy
[assuming you mean the go look it up idea]
We have the technology. Surely a CMS signed object (or even just an HTTPS
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to subpoenas
and
other legal requests.
The IETF receives requests for information, documentation, authentication or
other
matters through
35 matches
Mail list logo
