Hello John ... it would help me better understand your proposal in an
antitrust context if you elaborated to what you are referring at ANSI.
Could it be the text about use of trademarks in standards in the 2008
ANSI Guidelines on Embedded Trademark
http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20Standards/Procedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/ANSI%20Guidelines%20on%20Embedded%20Trademark.pdf
clip
The primary concern relating to the use of a mark in a standard is whether
it would appear
as if the standard is endorsing one particular proprietary product or
service over competing
ones.
B. General Guidance
As a general rule, standards should provide a description of features from
which
competing and interoperable implementations can be developed. The appearance
that a
standard endorses any particular products, services or companies should be
avoided.
Therefore, proper names, trademarks, service marks or certification marks of
specific
companies, products or services should not be included in the text of a
standard or in an
appendix (or the equivalent) if it appears that they might cause this
effect.
George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President, GTW Associates
Spencerville, MD USA 20868
301.421.4138
www.gtwassociates.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
To: "IETF" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: "IETF Chair" <chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Jorge Contreras"
<contreraslegal(_at_)att(_dot_)net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Antitrust FAQ
Hi.
A separate conversation stirred up memories of the ones at ANSI
from long ago and suggests something else that should be added
to the list:
* A protocol specification that has the appearance of being
solely the product of a single vendor or other organization is
inherently dangerous and dangerous to the IETF, not just the
particants. Problems can arise if a standards body rubber-stamps
a one-organization specification, especially if that
organization gains an advantage from standardization of its
technology. First-to-implement or other market dominance
factors may be as important in that regard as, e.g., licensing
restrictions. WGs or others evaluating such a specification
should be extra-careful to make sure that it has broad support
from unaffiliated people and that the support is documented for
the record in minutes, shepherd's reports, or through other
mechanisms.
Several of the terms above are wildly subjective, but this can
be an area in which, if one wishes to avoid trouble, the
appearance may be more important than hair-splitting about the
realities.
Just something to be considered.
best,
john