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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

The draft was discussed in gendispatch to determine if there was 
interest in the draft and how it could be considered for advancement.  
The conclusion of gendispatch was that it should be AD sponsored, and 
that the antitrust-policy list be used to discuss the draft.  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].

Yours,

Joel

On 2/27/2023 9:49 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I see that this draft has no charter related to and it seems that this 
> antitrust-policy group in concluded
>  which I was not aware until seen the below discuss emails,
>  therefore, I don't recommend discussing this draft only as 
> individual-draf out of ietf-general-Area, and not as WG draft,
> I agree with Russ on his concerns, and hope that draft AD 
> responsible, to make comment on this scope issue, and ietf-area draft 
> issue
> before we continue discussing without clear directions.
>
> Best 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] >
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[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
>