From nobody Fri Mar 10 23:43:17 2023
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157BCC135DFB
 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 23:43:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.797
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
 NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
 RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001,
 URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
 header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194])
 by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id Ner1O8sbaVxU for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Fri, 10 Mar 2023 23:43:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 570EFC136133
 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 23:43:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4PYZf70Fg5z6Gd6h;
 Fri, 10 Mar 2023 23:43:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com;
 s=2.tigertech; t=1678520591;
 bh=UGV8gCgJbEir+kJWq/F0y5R05HIuoTCLt7+WFMmZ2y0=;
 h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From;
 b=YSoSXcbPlMXwkDGmJVyYkSB6qW3Eg6mO2mn1lQc6l4KS61Zmgf+6MeyJDz49S7sR4
 UZE8TxZHJIIusr7YaMQ0VBTSATuKMBgjIFL/GSf58KA9NvD21kEyBf8t9YynzUPZoZ
 ApZ9TH3l/WQQ+QaarTvvvYcRjiBSi0V8J28mTK8c=
X-Quarantine-ID: <w0v0HeXl5-J9>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.21.74] (unknown [50.233.136.230])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4PYZf63fKLz6Gd6R;
 Fri, 10 Mar 2023 23:43:09 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------jAibXsDAoNv8XYoGzhfDnTxt"
Message-ID: <cb42c25f-2a04-277f-5568-340846c5bb36@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 02:43:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
References: <167837316646.46529.9056427917523349000@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <3ec2645a-642b-de85-bec2-7b54ebace2ca@joelhalpern.com>
 <PH0PR17MB4908382BC2326278B5B7AD12AEBA9@PH0PR17MB4908.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
 <55947793-83BF-443C-A240-B15E5BD801F2@ietf.org>
 <PH0PR17MB4908EAC244784896749B1E2EAEBA9@PH0PR17MB4908.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABcZeBOhs+f5ne_21UkDW-edSmHqxck9qeSFu38ovKZBOeQYHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <55b0a485-8b7a-9da4-aba6-6f77ccae5be9@joelhalpern.com>
 <EA3E14A9-87B7-4062-B5D4-7C4D9604FC9D@episteme.net>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <EA3E14A9-87B7-4062-B5D4-7C4D9604FC9D@episteme.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/antitrust-policy/_32XBAl5jQkdkI6uydDn_H8Yoxk>
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] I-D Action:
 draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05.txt
X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the
 IETF." <antitrust-policy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/antitrust-policy>,
 <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/antitrust-policy/>
List-Post: <mailto:antitrust-policy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy>,
 <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 07:43:16 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------jAibXsDAoNv8XYoGzhfDnTxt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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.

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
>
--------------jAibXsDAoNv8XYoGzhfDnTxt
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>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.</p>
    <p>Yours,</p>
    <p>Joel<br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/11/2023 12:36 AM, Pete Resnick
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:EA3E14A9-87B7-4062-B5D4-7C4D9604FC9D@episteme.net">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
        <div class="markdown" style="white-space: normal;">
          <p dir="auto">On 10 Mar 2023, at 19:46, Joel Halpern wrote:</p>
          <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px;
            border-left: 2px solid #777777; color: #777777;">
            <ul>
              <li>Seeking clarifications about IPR disclosures, in a
                context when any such clarifications could be reasonably
                perceived as entering into group negotiations of IPR
                terms.</li>
            </ul>
          </blockquote>
          <p dir="auto">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:</p>
          <ul>
            <li>Entering into group negotiations of IPR terms or any
              discussion that could be reasonably perceived as doing so.</li>
          </ul>
          <p dir="auto">"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.</p>
          <p dir="auto">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.</p>
          <p dir="auto">pr</p>
          <p dir="auto">--<br>
            Pete Resnick <a href="https://www.episteme.net/"
              style="color: #3983C4;" moz-do-not-send="true"
              class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.episteme.net/</a><br>
            All connections to the world are tenuous at best</p>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>

--------------jAibXsDAoNv8XYoGzhfDnTxt--