On May 9, 2012, at 12:28 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Yoav, > At 00:44 09-05-2012, Yoav Nir wrote: >> What the IETF writes in its policy amounts to a plea to users to >> pretty please send only factual information. I don't know that it >> makes a difference as to who is liable if the information turns out >> to be non-factual. > > Section 3 text mentions several paths for the issue, i.e. > responsibility lies with the working group chair with escalation to > area directors. Paragraph 2 and 3 discusses about that. The issue > which predates this draft is mentioned in the message at > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71484.html > > Do you know any IETF participant who is dumb enough to send a public > request for sanctions? :-)
Dean Anderson often linked to his website: http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/ (also loads of fun without the "People" path). IANAL but this does sound like libel. More recently, but not related to IPR issues, during the last IETF quite a few of our prominent members were calling for sanctions (removal of posting privileges) after some of the IETF.Fact.Check posts. > That can affect the individual's carrier > path in the IETF and in the corporate world. Some IETF participants > might even ask lawyers to take action. Watching "Behind enemy lines" > (disambiguation required) might be instructive in this context. > > At the end of the day, this draft is simply a matter of having an RFC > for those who might find the information helpful. Sometimes all one > can do is to say "pretty please". > > I'll +1 this draft as it stands. I'm fine with it as it is. I just hope the IETF is not held responsible for postings by individuals.
