ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

2011-11-29 11:02:37
fwiw - the last time I looked at this law
        1/ the IETF did not qualify as a SDO under the law
        2/ the law only protected employees of the SDO, not participants

Scott

On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

+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

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf