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

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 27 Feb 2023, at 15:09, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 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’s some context from the gendispatch discussions that I think would be useful here.  This also goes to the heart of Russ’s concerns.

There were some people who believed that we need an "antitrust policy", i.e. a BCP, that sets rules for people about their participation in the IETF, in order to close a perceived gap in our antitrust risk.  However, after much discussion and the LLC taking specialist legal advice, it was roughly agreed that our current policies and processes are sufficient policy to manage our risk, but what would be useful is an informative RFC that explains this to people (and the details of how this is so) and provides educational guidance on how to avoid engaging in antitrust behaviour.

After a number of revisions, this is how this I-D is now positioned - "Antitrust Guidelines for IETF Participants".  It might end up being described by some as an antitrust policy, but despite that as it does not introduce any new rules into the IETF process it is not a "policy".

We do need to be careful that people do not aim to use it to affect the standards process, and so any clarifications you might have, such as those sought by Christian, are very welcome.  Similarly, if the language needs to change to make it clearer that this is informational/educational then please speak up.

Jay

>> 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

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