Re: Antitrust FAQ
2012-10-15 09:16:06
On 10/15/12 7:53 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
message at any time earlier this year.
I'm disappointed because I'd like to work in an IETf climate where
antitrust and related concerns are taken seriously.
I need to believe that the IESG will take these issues seriously, will
give chairs and others the tools they need to do a good job and will
seriously consider concers that arise.
Sam, I'm actually quite surprised at your reaction. The intention of my
message (which obviously did not get across) was to say that I *do* take
antitrust issues seriously, and to allay your concerns about the last
two issues (the ones you labeled 7 and 8) because I think they are
covered in other parts of our procedures having nothing to do with
antitrust. I thought Jorge's answers were spot on, and followed up by
saying, "If you stick to other IETF procedures, you should have smooth
sailing." I'm at a loss for why you think this means I don't take these
issues seriously, and if what I said seemed dismissive of your needs as
a chair, please know that I'm intent on getting you the tools and
support you need. I feel terrible that you aren't getting that support
now, and I publicly commit to changing that. However, I do need to
understand what I dismissed and what needs to change.
I can recall a number of instances when I've raised concerns about not
having the appropriate tools or clarity of process in this regard. I can
also recall two instances where I've raised specific concerns about
anti-competitive practices.
In all these instances, including this one, I received pushback from an
area director working for a large company--Cisco, Ericson, Qualcomm,
etc.
I hope that you did not get pushback from me prior to this (I'm the only
Qualcomm AD at the moment), and if you did, I hope you'll tell me when
that happened. That said, I do find it interesting that the pushback
you've received is from people in large companies. I can tell you from
my experience that one person I've talked to in Qualcomm legal about
this topic would *prefer* the IETF to have not just a more elaborate
FAQ, but an explicit antitrust policy, and I have pushed back against
that. I can't speak for others, but I know that my position on this
topic is probably one of the least affected by my company affiliation.
In any event, I want to hear more about concerns you've raised where you
haven't gotten the tools or clarity of process you need, and I want to
make sure that gets fixed.
Would you be willing to consider the following questions?
Of course.
1) What harm is done by writing down common information in a FAQ where
chairs will be able to find it when trying to confirm they are doing the
right thing or double check what they should be considering?
Writing down helpful information is not at all a problem, and I do like
Dave Crocker's suggestion to add the bits about, "Sticking to these
other IETF procedures will keep you out of antitrust problems." My
concern (along with many other folks) only kicks in when the collection
of this information starts to look like a formal antitrust *policy*. I'm
afraid that having an antitrust policy starts to lead us down the path
of the IETF becoming a corporate-membership organization instead of a
collection of individuals who do not represent particular companies. To
date, we have little formal recognition of companies as participants in
the IETF, and I for one would like to keep it that way. The real
concerns that drive the desire for a formal antitrust policy are about
corporations behaving in improper (and illegal) ways, not individuals.
(There are ways for individuals to get themselves in antitrust trouble,
but that's not the main motivation for having such a policy.) The closer
we get to having such a policy, the closer we get to saying that we are
going to make the concerns of corporations an important part of how we
make decisions in the IETF. I think that would be a disaster.
If you see me pushing back against things in the antitrust FAQ, it's
because of the above concerns. I'm not trying to dismiss the needs of
folks like yourself in IETF leadership.
2) How messages like yours will affect chairs and others willingness to
bring concerns to you in your role of area director.
This one I'm not even sure how to start answering. As I said above, my
intention in my message was to point out process and procedure you
already have at your disposal to deal with antitrust issues. If I
sounded like I didn't take your concerns seriously or was unwilling to
hear concerns from chairs in the future, I will do everything I can to
fix that. (And if other chairs felt the same way that Sam did but did
not want to talk about it publicly, please drop me a private note; I
need to make good on this.)
Thanks for your consideration,
You are absolutely welcome, and if this message does not fully address
your concerns, please follow up. I'm also happy to talk, either by
phone/VoIP or in a few weeks in Atlanta, with you or any chair who is
not getting the support you need.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, (continued)
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, tglassey
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, Ted Hardie
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, Sam Hartman
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, Jorge Contreras
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, Sam Hartman
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, Pete Resnick
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, Dave Crocker
- Re: Re: Antitrust FAQ, Sam Hartman
- Re: Antitrust FAQ,
Pete Resnick <=
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, tglassey
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, John C Klensin
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, John C Klensin
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, George Willingmyre
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, Dave Crocker
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, John C Klensin
- Re: Antitrust FAQ, Stephen Farrell
Re: Antitrust FAQ, Abdussalam Baryun
|
|
|