Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Stephan Wenger <> Sun, 15 January 2012 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B1321F84EA for <>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:09:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.179
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K418I5vtWBwu for <>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:09:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F1821F84F1 for <>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:09:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unverified []) by (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 13697-1743317 for multiple; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:09:21 +0100
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:09:14 -0800
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Jorge Contreras <>, "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3409484962_6156617"
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP ( was found in the spamhaus database.
Cc:, Russ Housley <>
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:09:53 -0000

Hi Jorge,

From:  Jorge Contreras <>
Date:  Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:57:28 -0600
To:  "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Cc:  <>, Russ Housley <>
Subject:  Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for the IETF


> The issue of "collective negotiation" of licensing terms within an SDO is
> currently unsettled, and there are vocal advocates on each side of the
> question.  There have been no cases (at least not in the US) that are directly
> on point, as far as I'm aware.  Thus, we may wish to say nothing about this
> issue for the moment, and see how the law develops.

That doesn't strike me as being the safest course of action.  What's wrong
the documenting the current practice (at least based on my IETF experience)
of not conducting licensing discussions in a Note Well setting?  What are
the reasons for taking the IMO bold step of not mentioning such an
obviously, and elsewhere prominently mentioned, point?


_______________________________________________ antitrust-policy mailing