Tl;dr version: I think that there is value in having IETF legal counsel
evaluate us against other SDOs specifically regarding considerations around
membership (or lack thereof), voting (or lack thereof), and openness (or lack
thereof).
That would help us to determine if this is really something we need to
pursue/be concerned about, because it would help to determine if IETF is just
like the other SDOs who have an antitrust policy, or if they are materially
different enough that it's probably not necessary.
Responding to a couple of specific points inline below...
Wes George
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Donald Eastlake
(c) The IETF does not have any members
The governance of the I* is complicated but I don't think any court
would have any trouble finding that, for some purposes, the membership
of the IETF is those qualified to serve as voting noncom members.
[WEG] Yes, but that is by definition not restricted other than to ensure that
those involved have some familiarity with IETF by virtue of having paid
registration for multiple meetings. Note the distinction here - while 3777 says
"attended" it is not more specific on what can be considered attendance. One
could easily register and skip every single meeting if it suited their purposes
- we're not checking blue sheets here... Further, eligibility as a voting
nomcom member affords no additional influence in the process of defining
standards. It only provides influence if one is randomly selected (via a
publicly published algorithm) to participate on nomcom, and even then, that is
only to install leadership, not to dictate technical policy. Yes, there is a
relationship between nominated leaders and technical standards, but that's a
stretch IMO.
(d) People participate in the IETF as individuals
[WEG] this would be tough to defend. We say that, but we still allow people to
place a company affiliation on their badge and on any drafts that they write,
use company email addresses (including those who forcibly append stupid legal
disclaimers at the end of every message :-/ ), and run afoul of company IPR,
not to mention the fact that the vast majority of people attending meetings are
funded by their company, both in time, travel costs, and registration fees.
(f) The IETF does not vote
Legally, I don't think there is much difference between many IETF
decision procedures and the voice voting commonly used in various
assemblies.
[WEG] I disagree. Anyone can participate in the unofficial votes that the IETF
holds in WG meetings and on mailing lists. The vote can be skewed by "tourists"
in the WG meetings, people who hum particularly loudly, the acoustics of the
room, people who join the WG mailing list simply to voice an opinion on a
certain draft or issue, etc, etc. And the votes are untallied, non-binding,
primarily serving as guidance to WG and IESG leadership. Many other SDOs have
very defined requirements around what is considered a member and when you can
vote (such as IEEE, which requires a certain amount of documented attendance
before one can vote on technical proposals:
http://ieee802.org/3/rules/member.html). Votes are also tallied and used as
official decisions.
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and
any printout.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf