Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 01/20/2012 11:48 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> I'll leave the INCITS version of John Levine's hypothetical cross-examination as an
>>> exercise for the reader, aside from noting that it would diverge dramatically at the
>>> very first answer.
>>
>> And therein lies the danger. If we were to try get into a position
>> where the IETF says more than "not really" then we're probably heading
>> towards paid membership. (More than "not really," implies that we
>> can eject folks and their sock-puppets far more efficiently than now,
>> which implies we know who everyone is and who they represent...)
>
> What difference do you see between paid membership and paid meeting fees?

Different debate. Wrong list too I think. This list is not about
changing how folks participate in the IETF. But a quick answer
would be: not everyone goes to meetings.

S

>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:37 PM
>> To: Black, David
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/20/2012 11:26 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>> An alternative to your view is that violation of such laws is detrimental not
>>>>> only to those who may be responsible for the violations, but also to the effective
>>>>> operation of the IETF as a whole, and I believe all IETF participants have
>>>>> (or should have) an interest in the latter.
>>>>
>>>> Fair point. Does that need a policy (other than "Don't be bold")?
>>>
>>> Yes - it's a good idea to spell out what not being bold means in somewhat more detail ;-).
>>>
>>> As I've noted earlier, here's an example of a somewhat more detailed standards organization
>>> anti-trust policy (see the bulleted list of six Sensitive Topics):
>>>
>>> 	http://www.incits.org/inatrust.htm
>>>
>>> Notice of that policy is given as part of every INCITS standards meeting (it's part of
>>> the INCITS functional equivalent of the NOTE WELL), and the policy is enforced.  While
>>> it doesn't happen very often, I have seen the policyi enforced in practice.
>>>
>>> I'll leave the INCITS version of John Levine's hypothetical cross-examination as an
>>> exercise for the reader, aside from noting that it would diverge dramatically at the
>>> very first answer.
>>
>> And therein lies the danger. If we were to try get into a position
>> where the IETF says more than "not really" then we're probably heading
>> towards paid membership. (More than "not really," implies that we
>> can eject folks and their sock-puppets far more efficiently than now,
>> which implies we know who everyone is and who they represent...)
>>
>> If there's a way to usefully say "don't be bold about anti-trust" that
>> doesn't sit at the top of that slippery slope then I'd be interested
>> in seeing that.
>>
>> S
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --David
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:10 PM
>>>> To: Black, David
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/20/2012 11:02 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>>> Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes.  I'll leave finding relevant
>>>>>>> case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fair enough wrt company size. I've no idea how big Rambus
>>>>>> were at the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But my main point still applies, I believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate that ... as to your main point:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can
>>>>>>>>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to
>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm ... Russ's second paragraph was:
>>>>>
>>>>> 	Yet, it is worth reminding all IETF participants that all IETF meetings,
>>>>> 	including virtual meetings, shall be conducted in compliance with all
>>>>> 	applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws.
>>>>
>>>> Right. "Don't be bold" is fine advice. But not really a policy.
>>>> (I'd also be interested in the answer to John Levine's most
>>>> recent question [1].)
>>>>
>>>>> An alternative to your view is that violation of such laws is detrimental not
>>>>> only to those who may be responsible for the violations, but also to the effective
>>>>> operation of the IETF as a whole, and I believe all IETF participants have
>>>>> (or should have) an interest in the latter.
>>>>
>>>> Fair point. Does that need a policy (other than "Don't be bold")?
>>>>
>>>> S
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/antitrust-policy/current/msg00052.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> --David
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Stephen Farrell
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:53 PM
>>>>>> To: Black, David
>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/20/2012 10:47 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>>>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large
>>>>>>>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant
>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees
>>>>>>>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes.  I'll leave finding relevant
>>>>>>> case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fair enough wrt company size. I've no idea how big Rambus
>>>>>> were at the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But my main point still applies, I believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> S
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants
>>>>>>>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest this approach, particularly if the policy is not burdensome (e.g., a list of
>>>>>>> topics that should not be discussed), as there are a significant number of IETF participants
>>>>>>> whose organizations are concerned about anti-trust (e.g., employees of large companies),
>>>>>>> and I would hope everyone would be interested in encouraging broad participation in the IETF.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>> Stephen Farrell
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:32 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Thomas Narten
>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Russ Housley; Jorge Contreras
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/20/2012 10:18 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Stephen Farrell<[e-mail]>      writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can
>>>>>>>>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to
>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on this, but engineers with no background
>>>>>>>>> in anti-trust opining "much ado about nothing, I work for XYZ which
>>>>>>>>> can't possibly cause an issue" makes a good argument for why we do
>>>>>>>>> need a policy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large
>>>>>>>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant
>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees
>>>>>>>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants
>>>>>>>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above two seem to be the choices here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      >     But it better be simple, clear and be understandable by
>>>>>>>>> IETF participants. And maybe calling it a "policy" goes to far. What
>>>>>>>>> we need is enough basic education about participant behavior to make
>>>>>>>>> sure the IETF keeps out of trouble.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Much as we might like to ignore IPR, anti-trust, and other
>>>>>>>>> non-engineering issues, we are potentially impacted by them, and the
>>>>>>>>> IETF could (if it or its participants behave stupidly), could find
>>>>>>>>> itself in a Heap of Pain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But let's keep perspective here. Some simple guidelines, with an
>>>>>>>>> understanding that if folk start going into dangerous territory that
>>>>>>>>> needs to be stopped is probably about all we need.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I pretty much agree with the above. But I don't see what's required
>>>>>>>> that's new compared to what we already have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> S.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> antitrust-policy mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>