Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

And another thing…

 

Just in a BBF meeting and they drew attention to their anti-trust policy.

https://www.broadband-forum.org/about-bbf/how-we-work/policies-procedures/the-broadband-forum-antitrust-guidelines

 

The thing that jumped out at me was:

1.    Adopt formal meeting agendas.

2.  Adhere to them.

3.  Minute all meetings, review them, and approve them.

 

Not sure whether you would consider this advise important to your draft.

 

No need for a response. Just act as you consider appropriate.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

 

From: Jay Daley <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 01 March 2024 15:54
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt

 

Hi Adrian





On 1 Mar 2024, at 15:24, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

 

Hey Jay,




I think a key piece of advice is missing (yes, I see 4.2). It may be too
obvious, but surely you should be saying "individuals are recommended to
seek legal advice" somewhere highly prominent. For example, lifting and
tweaking a paragraph from BCP79 and placing it at the end of Section 1...

 This document is not intended as legal advice.  Readers are advised
 to consult their own legal advisors if they would like a legal
 interpretation of antitrust laws, the risks, and their responsibilities.


Section 4.2 is intended to be exactly that so I’m confused as to why you
would apparently dismiss it and then ask for the same thing?  Is it just a
matter of where it goes or is the language in 4.2 insufficient or do you
think we need both 4.2 and the new text above?


Did I dismiss it? 

 

That's what I took from "(yes, I see 4.2)" with no further mention of it, but from your response it seems as if that was not the intent so I misunderstood. 





Maybe it is just the prominence. I wrote my comment having read the Abstract, Introduction, and Section 2. I was starting on Section 3 when the thought occurred. 

 

Thanks - I will talk to my co-author.

 

 

On the earlier question of referencing the COIs and whistleblower service, I have conferred with colleagues who note that all the COI policies are easy to find on the web site, (except for one, which we are investigating), and that the whistleblower service is the first result when searching for " IETF whistleblower".  Given that, there’s a strong preference not to have links in the RFC that need to be maintained, or for us to maintain a page at a stable link that then links to these COIs.  However, if you think the effort would be worth it then please let me know.

 

thanks again 

Jay

 

 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>