Re: [antitrust-policy] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05.txt

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

The text on pricing is much narrower than it was, and the text on supply 
chain is extremely specific ("details about the supply chains of 
specific companies").  As far as I can tell, in the Solar Winds case, 
that would recommend against discussing who used Solar Winds, but would 
not have any effect on discussing Solar Wind's security vulnerability.

So yes, we did try to address your concerns.  Whether we succeeded is 
for you to judge.

Yours,

Joel

On 3/11/2023 2:02 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> On 11/03/2023 18:55, Joel Halpern wrote:
>> Pete's email (retained below) has a specific quote from the document 
>> and specific proposed replacement text.   That is what I was asking 
>> for feedback from those with concerns.
>
> Ah sorry, hadn't got that. I think Pete's suggested
> text is an improvement yes.
>
> FWIW though, I didn't see that my comments as to OSS
> (zero price) and supply chain attacks had been addressed
> in the latest version, so I'm not at a point of being
> in love with the overall text as yet:-)
>
> S.
>
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Joel
>>
>> On 3/11/2023 9:17 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Joel,
>>>
>>> On 11/03/2023 07:43, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>>> If that change to the bullet (to become "entering into ..." 
>>>> resolves the objections, then I am happy to make that change.   I 
>>>> would like to hear from those who have been expressing disagreement 
>>>> with the bullet.
>>>
>>> I suspect you might be better to post OLD/NEW text or
>>> a PR if there's a git repo - since the problems I and
>>> maybe others are having with the text in 4.x seems to
>>> mainly be related to over-broad descriptions of dodgy
>>> situations that ends up also possibly covering things
>>> that are just not dodgy, having replacement text is a
>>> good plan.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> S.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>>
>>>> Joel
>>>>
>>>> On 3/11/2023 12:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10 Mar 2023, at 19:46, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>       * Seeking clarifications about IPR disclosures, in a context
>>>>>         when any such clarifications could be reasonably perceived as
>>>>>         entering into group negotiations of IPR terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> The comma there is grammatically incorrect and, while that seems 
>>>>> like an editorial nit, maybe that's what's causing the hiccup for 
>>>>> me. Try this:
>>>>>
>>>>>   * Entering into group negotiations of IPR terms or any discussion
>>>>>     that could be reasonably perceived as doing so.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Seeking clarifications about IPR disclosures" is an not a problem 
>>>>> and putting it separately as the first clause of the bullet makes 
>>>>> it seem like that alone needs to be done with caution. It's only 
>>>>> when the discussion turns to negotiating IPR terms (or things that 
>>>>> smell like that) that problems come up. If you say the above 
>>>>> instead, it would cause me less heartburn.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also agree with Stephan's point about restructuring 4.1 as a 
>>>>> bullet list. Right now, even though the intro phrase says "These 
>>>>> topics include", some of the things in the list are not topics; 
>>>>> some are "discussions" and some only are problematic if the 
>>>>> discussion of the topic is is among competitors. Rewriting this as 
>>>>> a bullet list and making sure the actor is identified would help 
>>>>> clarify for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> pr
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
>>>>> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy