Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-06.txt

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

Having re-read all of the emails on 4.2 (topics requiring caution) I want to try to understand better if there is a way forward that people would be happy with.

For the first bullet, this seems a straightforward change to replace 'detailed' with 'unpublished' as that’s more precise and it avoids a subjective discussion about what 'detailed' means, and a better phrasing of the alternatives.  This would see the text changing from: 

* Using detailed market data to evaluate the relative implementation
costs of two technical alternatives to decide whether one is
significantly more feasible in the market and thus a better
candidate for standardization.

to: 

 * Using /unpublished/ market data to evaluate the relative 
implementation costs of /alternative technical proposals/ to decide
whether one is significantly more feasible in the market and thus 
a better candidate for standardization.


The second bullet of 4.2 is more complex and so, in order to better understand the concerns,  I offer two options that approach it from different angles to see if either might present a way forward.  That would see the text changing from:

* Entering into group negotiations of IPR terms.

to something like:

* Entering into private or potentially discriminatory, group 
negotiations of IPR terms.

or something like:

* Entering into group negotiations of IPR terms, except in the 
context of a policy intended to apply to the IETF as a whole.

Thoughts?

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]