On 10/11/2012 12:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 11/10/2012 05:01, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
The current language merely specifies presence at an IETF meeting as the
sole criterion.
It's behaviour at an IETF meeting that we are concerned about. Whether
it occurs in a session, in a corridor, in a private room, or electronically,
it would still violate anti-trust law afaik (ianal).
What is perhaps missing is a qualification like "except in private conversation
with fellow employees", in case that isn't obvious.
Brian
And that would mean "any act or communication in furtherance of an IETF
initiative". The problem you have here is the definition of a conspiracy
under US Law - the left hand doesnt have to be in direct communication
with the right hand here to be a quantifiable conspiracy.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00923.htm
The fun part is that the obvious use of the US Copyright act to create a
monopoly on the IETF IP brand is clearly the first step in documenting
the "conspiracy" here. The issue then is one of disclosure to prevent
antitrust - meaning everyone needs to fess up with regard to who's
power-of-attorney as required by the BCPs they represent here before the
IETF.
Todd Glassey
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5823 - Release Date: 10/10/12
--
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended
recipient.