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
