Re: [antitrust-policy] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust/

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:53 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The draft was discussed in gendispatch to determine if there was interest
> in the draft and how it could be considered for advancement.
>
if they had interest why not discussed there in gendispatch-list then, I
could not understand that they refer to a concluded place or a place/list
with no charter currently now when I checked. Is this ok, I got confused.

> The conclusion of gendispatch was that it should be AD sponsored, and that
> the antitrust-policy list be used to discuss the draft.
>
ok sponsored by AD so it is individual-draft, but why in this place
discussed, and may be some people are not aware of this place, as it is not
a place for sponsored-AD issues, am I right because I am not sure. My
concerns is that these Policy_draft are very very important and SHOULD not
be discussed in some place which is not usually for some one especially
participanting from Africa as me.

> There is no IETF policy problem with this sequence, it is what the
> community asked for, and it seems significantly better than simply having
> the AD issue a last call and then discuss it on [e-mail].
>
IMHO, was the decision of the gendispatch_community and not the
gen-area-community and not the ietf-community, so I think its only goes to
the place the gendispatch-community discusses/decides/works, without taking
the work/draft to other places which are not related.

Regards
AB

On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 6:43 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Russ, I have to fundamentally disagree with you.
>>
>> If we were trying to publish this as an IETF RFC without community
>> consensus, your argument (and the more recent RFC about IESG approval of
>> documents) would prevent that.
>>
>> But the IETF is allowed to choose what mechanism it uses to revisit
>> questions.  In this case, it is not even revisiting a question in a
>> published document, but rather the conclusion about what was reasonable to
>> do from an earlier BoF.  You are free to raise the issue of suitable
>> international scope which you allude to in your email but do not elaborate
>> on at enough length for us to disucss.
>>
>> But the conclusion of an earlier BoF to not do something does not lead to
>> a requirement to have a BoF to publish an Informational RFC on this topic.
>> Further, we actually asked the community first how they would like to
>> handle the document, and hte rough consensus of gendispatch, which exists
>> for this purpose, was that AD sponsored with a discussion venue was
>> suitable.  If you want to argue that gendispatch is not allowed to do that,
>> I suggest you take it up with the current IETF chair, not with the selected
>> venue.
>>
>> I believe there is also training material being developed, but that is a
>> separate question from this document which aims to get better information
>> to the community at large.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Joel
>>
>> On 2/25/2023 10:11 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> > This document seems to be going in a different direction than >
>> recommended by the community at the antitrust BOF at IETF 83. My > memory
>> is that the BOF concluded that educational material should be > developed
>> so that IETF participants are aware of the various laws. > This is actually
>> not easy because the laws are quite different in > various parts of the
>> world. Without holding a new BOF that shows a > change in the community
>> perspective, a document with recommendations > should not move forward. > >
>> Russ > > >> On Feb 24, 2023, at 8:33 PM, Brad Biddle <[e-mail] >
>> <[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>> wrote: >>
>> >> I'm writing to address the concerns raised by Christian [1][2], >> Mark
>> [3] and Pete [4] about Section 4.2 of the draft, which >> recommends that
>> participants "Use Caution ... [when] [s]eeking >> clarifications about IPR
>> disclosures, in a context when any such >> clarifications could be
>> reasonably perceived as entering into group >> negotiations of IPR terms."
>> Christian said this "looks like an >> admonishment for WG to not do" things
>> like "modif[ing] standards to >> avoid [patent] claims, or structur[ing]
>> standards in ways that >> allow for negotiation of either the encumbered
>> option or a free >> alternative." Mark suggests that this part of 4.2 is
>> too broad and >> could be narrowed to focus on the scenario when "such a
>> discussion >> results in something that's open to all but advantages some
>> party >> through the structure of the agreement." Pete conveyed general >>
>> support for these concerns, and noted generally that "speaking in >> terms
>> of specific examples instead of trying to be broad would >> clarify things
>> greatly." >> >> First, Section 4.2 is NOT an admonishment to not engage in
>> any >> particular behavior. Section 4.2 expressly acknowledges that the >>
>> behaviors described there can be relevant for standards setting, >> and
>> simply suggests that participants "use caution" when engaging >> in them.
>> It suggests what one approach to caution might look like: >> "IETF
>> participants who require informal advice on these issues have >> a number
>> of options open to them, including speaking to relevant >> Area Directors,
>> raising the matter with the community on a mailing >> list, or contacting
>> IETF counsel directly." I don't think there's >> any reasonable reading of
>> Section 4.2 that could conclude that it >> is prohibiting the kinds of
>> activities Christian identifies >> (particularly given the emphasis in the
>> document on the importance >> of our existing policies, which would include
>> Section 7 of BCP 79 >> [5]). The idea is simply that participants should be
>> aware, as an >> educational matter, that certain kinds of IPR-related
>> discussions >> can be more fraught with antitrust risk than one might
>> expect, and >> that appropriate cautions--which could be as simple as
>> following >> established IETF norms, in a straightforward circumstance--are
>> >> warranted. >> >> Second, the kinds of risks that Section 4.2 points to
>> are >> potentially both broader and more nuanced than the scenario Mark >>
>> describes, and I think that trying to address the issues at the >> level of
>> specificity that Mark (and perhaps Pete) suggests would >> require a
>> document that would start to look like a legal treatise >> on antitrust
>> law. I think the best we can do in this style of >> document is a general
>> (yellow/caution) flag-waving around a >> category of risk, coupled with a
>> suggestion to obtain advice as >> needed. >> >> So: I'm inclined to leave
>> 4.2 as-is. I don't think it creates the >> problem that Christian
>> identifies, and I think the 'high-levelness' >> of the current language is
>> a feature, not a bug. My sense is that >> perhaps some of the criticism is
>> coming from a place of either >> assuming the document is trying to do
>> something more than what it >> is currently doing, which in my view is to
>> simply summarize >> long-standing policies and practices and to provide
>> some pretty >> generic educational ideas. >> >> --Brad (IETF counsel) >> >>
>> [1] >>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/antitrust-policy/Uo1si3u-3eqVpXX9qwSN-JGtqNA/
>> >>
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/antitrust-policy/Uo1si3u-3eqVpXX9qwSN-JGtqNA/>
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/antitrust-policy/Uo1si3u-3eqVpXX9qwSN-JGtqNA/>
>> >> >> [2]
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/jMijzjOBDyt9E_3wXW2tB7XEJKw/
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/jMijzjOBDyt9E_3wXW2tB7XEJKw/>
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/jMijzjOBDyt9E_3wXW2tB7XEJKw/>
>> >> [3] >>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/Ywq1S7nxBo_PsqjaMZMGT_78w0Y/
>> >>
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/Ywq1S7nxBo_PsqjaMZMGT_78w0Y/>
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/Ywq1S7nxBo_PsqjaMZMGT_78w0Y/>
>> >> >> [4]
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/antitrust-policy/rLoncSq8K2U1jcj0k-BIE70XyIk/
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/antitrust-policy/rLoncSq8K2U1jcj0k-BIE70XyIk/>
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/antitrust-policy/rLoncSq8K2U1jcj0k-BIE70XyIk/>
>> >> [5] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.txt >>
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.txt>
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.txt> >> > > >
>> _______________________________________________ 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
>>
>