Re: [antitrust-policy] Comments on the draft

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 2:51 AM Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Philip,
>
> Can you please be slightly less cryptic?  Specifically:
>

Not really, there are these things called libel laws and they are almost
invariably used by malicious individuals to suppress fair comment on their
activities. Truth is a defense but does not pay the cost of a defense.


-What was “this issue”?  (link to a previous email is fine)
>
> -A more detailed characterization of the “separate standards organization”
> would help me to make up my mind whether this hearsay of alleged behavior
> were relevant to the IETF.
>

The feature in question was an IETF specification documented in an RFC and
the individual who made the threat also participates in IETF.



> -And, when was this alleged incident?
>

It occurred just before the Singapore meeting.


Thanks,
>
> Stephan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *antitrust-policy <[e-mail]> on behalf of
> Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Monday, October 16, 2023 at 18:46
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[antitrust-policy] Comments on the draft
>
> As one of the people who has been raising this issue, I would like to
> share a summary of the specific incident that raised my concern.
>
>
>
> The specific issue raised was in a separate standards organization and
> involved an alleged threat by an employee of a dominant application
> provider to effectively terminate the ability of service providers to
> operate if they implemented a particular feature.
>
>
>
> That situation has since been remedied and said individual is no longer
> employed by said provider, nor do they participate in any standards process
> that I am aware of.
>
>
>
> I was not present for the meeting in question but I did follow up with
> people inside the IETF and the senior management of the company in question.
>