Re: Antitrust FAQ

On 10/15/2012 7:14 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 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.
I am - I am saying the current models are useless, they get us to the 
point where NEA was being brought up before the IESG itself and we find 
one of the primary party's behind the process has an IPR disclosure.
As to Antitrust - well - it doesnt really matter what the IETF wants to 
claim is the law internally to the IETF - it simply is not a legal court 
system and has no authority other than ...
Todd
> > 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

--
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended 
recipient.