potential "vote packers" in voluntary consensus standards processes take heed
of 1988 Supreme Court affirmation of lower court award of $3.8 million in
damages (before trebling) antitrust liability of Allied Tube & Conduit Corp
when packing NFPA process
http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/Cases/AlliedTube.htm
Supreme Court affirmed
In its complaint, plaintiff Indian Head, Inc. (Carlon) charged that defendant
Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. had conspired to prevent inclusion of Carlon's
product in industry standards. The jury found for Carlon, and awarded it $3.8
million in damages (before trebling).
Allied Tube v. Indian Head, Inc. - 486 U.S. 492 (1988)
Before the meeting was held, petitioner, the Nation's largest producer of steel
conduit, members of the steel industry, other steel conduit manufacturers, and
independent sales agents collectively agreed to exclude respondent's product
from the 1981 Code by packing the annual meeting with new Association members
whose only function was to vote against respondent's proposal.
George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President, GTW Associates
Spencerville, MD USA 20868
301.421.4138
www.gtwassociates.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "SM" <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules
Hi John,
At 06:04 16-02-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
A current Last Call has apparently brought on another of the
"please tell all your friends to send in supportive notes, even
if they don't say much of anything substantive" campaigns that
we see from time to time. When those notes come from people who
do not routinely participate on IETF lists, they provide very
little real information unless we have suddenly taken up voting
Letter-writing campaigns occur every now and then. As there isn't
any vote count, the effort can end up in a diluted form.
individual and +1" does not. Sadly, such endorsements,
especially from people who are not active IETF participants, add
to the noise and might prevent someone who was still genuinely
trying to understand the pros and cons (presumably including all
of the IESG) from seeing a new and substantive argument, no
matter how well-grounded.
Last year, someone discussed about how a "+1" could be read and some
people were offended. Maybe authors should be given the choice to
have their proposal evaluated by counting the votes or to have the
evaluation which is based on substantive comments. Nobody would be
offended then.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
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