+1
It would be helpful in the non normative statement to the community to cite
what suits were are involved, what was the cause of action and what if any
decisions were rendered in these cases.
US antitrust law, for instance has specific exemptions for SDO's.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_108-237/Title_I
There are some requirements under this act that SDO's need to file a
statement of purpose. I don't know if we ever did that.
In general, however this sounds like a sound and valuable move.
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Ted
Hardie
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:27 PM
To: IETF Chair
Cc: IETF; IESG
Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, IETF Chair <chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
Sorry, can you expand on the threat model here? Are we developing one in
order to defend against some specific worry about our not having one?
Because it has become best practice in other SDOs? Because the insurance
agent wishes to see something in particular?
I hesitate to develop something that we have not needed in the past unless
it is clear what benefit it gives us. In particular, if we develop one
without some particular characteristic, do we lose the benefits of being
where we are now?
Recent suits against other SDOs is the source of the concern. The idea is t
make it clear which topics are off limits at IETF meetings and on IETF mail
lists. In this way, if such discussions take place, the good name of the
IETF can be kept clean.
Russ
Hmm, I would characterize our previous policy as a quite public statement
that no one is excluded from IETF discussion and decision making, along
with with reminders that what we are deciding is the technical standard, not
the resulting marketplace. What we can say beyond that without diving into
national specifics is obscure to me.
I agree with Dave that the first work product of an attorney should be a
non-normative explanation to the community of how having such a policy helps
and what it must say in order to get that benefit.
(I have to say that my personal experience is that prophylactic measures
against law suits tend to change the terms of the suits but not their
existence. In this case, suing someone because they did not enforce the
policy or the policy did not cover some specific jurisdiction's requirements
perfectly, seems like the next step. Your mileage may vary.)
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf