Subject: Liability Waiver Statement for BCP's - (Jorge pls respond)

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:36:28 -0700

Jorge - redundancy is better - I agree. That said, lets protect the IETF a
tad more...

(hey wait - didn't I just say it was dead? - relax SOX moves slowly and
there is time still to fix those issues - but the commentary was accurate
and was phrased to get you all to think about  important SOX's IP management
issues are to a global standards org).

As to adding protection for the IETF itself in reliance on its process
documents,  I want to propose the addition of a liability waiver statement
specifically for the BCP's and for any and all code excerpts from RFC's that
would be used in a production environment. This is to protect the IETF and
those members in the WG's working on this IP. Jorge should write this I
think.

In fact Jorge I want to propose you produce a "IETF Legal BS Boilerplate
Document" and submit it to the IPR WG who will ratify it instantly. I think
at minimum it should have the following in it but you as Counsel know best:

    Liability Waiver
    Relying Party Agreement
    Liquidated Damages Waiver
    Hold Harmless Waiver (for both Submitters and relying parties)
    Choice of Law Statement

And this would be the WilmerHale RFC and would fill in, in a very stable
document, the missing pieces of the submission releases and reliance
releases that are currently lacking...

Todd

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg