Re: [antitrust-policy] back to what problem are we trying to solve

["George Willingmyre" <[e-mail]>]

John, When we began discussing this late last year, I  was also asking what 
problem we were aiming at.

I  have strived to reconstruct the answer from last December  below

>From the point of view of what was the closest thing to an example of a real 
problem  from outside of IETF  there is a current lawsuit where it is 
alleged two standards developing organisations have failed to " monitor and 
enforce the SSO Rules  ...  "  and more see below.  As best I know this 
litigation is on going so there are no conclusions. It seems to me that 
this    example  points to  the importance of  participants  following 
procedures of the standards  organizations.   I leave for discussion how 
best to address this sort of problem if it exists  in IETF.

  Here is the trail


> From: IETF Chair [[e-mail]]
>
> The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought
> to have an antitrust policy.  To address this need, a lawyer is
> needed

And then to get a little more targeted on a specific  exact problem  Russ 
elaborated:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: IETF Chair
To: Ted Hardie
Cc: IETF ; IESG
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF


Ted:


    The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought 
to have an antitrust policy.  To address this need, a lawyer is needed.  As 
a way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial 
draft, and then this draft be brought to the community for review and 
comment (and probably revision).  I think a new mail list should be used for 
the discussion.  Once the new mail list reaches rough consensus on the 
antitrust policy document, I suggest using the usual process for adopting 
the policy as an IETF BCP.

    What do others think?  I am open to suggestions for an alternative 
approach.



  Sorry, can you expand on the threat model here?  Are we developing one in 
order to defend against some specific worry about our not having one? 
Because it has become best practice in other SDOs?  Because the insurance 
agent wishes to see something in particular?

  I hesitate to develop something that we have not needed in the past unless 
it is clear what benefit it gives us.  In particular, if we develop one 
without some particular characteristic, do we lose the benefits of being 
where we are now?



Recent suits against other SDOs is the source of the concern.  The idea is 
to make it clear which topics are off limits at IETF meetings and on IETF 
mail lists.  In this way, if such discussions take place, the good name of 
the IETF can be kept clean.


Russ

And then Jorge provided a real case that points toward participants 
following procedures


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jorge Contreras
To: GTW
Cc: IETF Chair ; Ted Hardie ; IETF ; IESG
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF


On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM, GTW <[e-mail]> wrote:

  Ted, I like your approach of enquiring what problem we are striving to 
solve and I like Russ's concise answer that it is "Recent suits against 
other SDOs that  is the source of the concern"

  Russ, what are  some of the  "Recent suits against other SDOs"  It would 
be good to pin down the problem we are addressing

  There is  FTC and N-data matter from 2008 
http://www.gtwassociates.com/alerts/Ndata1.htm

George -- one recent example is the pending antitrust suit by True Position 
against ETSI, 3GPP and several of their members (who also employ some IETF 
participants, I believe).  Here is some relevant language from the 
Complaint:

"100.   By their failures to monitor and enforce the SSO Rules, and to 
respond to TruePosition's  specific complaints concerning violations of the 
SSO Rules, 3GPP and ETSI have acquiesced in, are responsible for, and 
complicit in, the abuse of authority and anticompetitive conduct by 
Ericsson, Qualcomm, and Alcatel-Lucent.  These failures have resulted in the 
issuance of a Release 9 standard tainted by these unfair processes, and for 
the delay until Release 11, at the earliest, of a 3GPP standard for UTDOA 
positioning technology.  By these failures, 3GPP and ETSI have authorized 
and ratified the anticompetitive conduct of Ericsson, Qualcomm, and 
Alcatel-Lucent and have joined in and become parties to their combination 
and conspiracy."



George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President, GTW Associates
Spencerville, MD USA 20868
301.421.4138
www.gtwassociates.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Levine" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] back to what problem are we trying to solve


> >What difference do you see between paid membership and paid meeting fees?
>
> Most of the IETF's work happens on mailing lists like this one.  I
> realize it would take a dimwitted set of conspirators to do their
> conspiring in a written medium that has a public realtime archive, but
> that hasn't stopped people before.
>
> So anyway, can someone please explain what problem we're trying to solve 
> here.
>
> Is it to reduce the chance that the IETF is involved in an antitrust legal 
> case?
>
> Is it to reduce the chance that IETF participants get themselves or their 
> employers
> involved in a legal case?
>
> Is it to improve awareness of anti-trust law, to help people be good 
> citizens?
>
> Something else?
>
> R's,
> John
>
> PS: "All of the above" is not a helpful answer, since that would equally 
> apply to
> the anti-marijuana policy.
>
> _______________________________________________
> antitrust-policy mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>