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

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
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg