--On Monday, October 15, 2012 09:14 -0500 Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
FWIW, I share these concerns (and said so during an earlier
round of discussions of antitrust policy). We've spent a huge
amount of effort trying to ensure that IETF participation is by
individuals rather than on the basis of organizational
memberships or affiliations; it would be very unfortunate to
back into something that would undermine that rather basic
policy. IANAL, much less one with the right specialized
expertise to advise on whether we could have an effective
antitrust policy without having to move to "membership" with
associated agreements and identified affiliations, but I've been
told it is hard or impossible.
As Pete says, advice about what one should not do -- enhanced by
a reminder that following normal IETF procedures and
requirements for openness and conssnsus will avoid most or all
accidental problems -- is another thing and is probably useful
and certainly harmless.
Two suggestions about the document (I am _not_ suggesting
wording):
First, based on discussions at ANSI _many_ years ago, the
current point 6 says "...should not be discussed at IETF
meeting?". Ignoring the small grammatical problem, the issue is
not limited to IETF meetings. Anything that should not be
discussed at a meeting should not be discussed on a mailing
list, conference call, or context that might, for other reasons,
be subject to BCP 78 or 79. Put differently, such discussions
should not occur in any IETF context. They should probably also
not occur in any context that might have the effect of
influencing IETF decisions or actions without the advice of
counsel.
Second, as I understand things, it might be useful to enhance
point 4 to note that good practices wrt antitrust issues
protects participants and whomever might be supporting their
work as much or more than it protects the IETF.
best,
john