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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>