Re: [antitrust-policy] Who enforces an Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Russ Housley <> Fri, 20 January 2012 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9186121F84D2 for <>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:21:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.509
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9UMA5Nj3Ix6j for <>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:21:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A5F921F84CE for <>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212DD9A479A; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:21:38 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SE2lF8MbM3jY; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:21:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245D09A4793; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:21:37 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <>
In-Reply-To: <20120115212301.36291.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:21:30 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <20120115212301.36291.qmail@joyce.lan>
To: John Levine <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Who enforces an Antitrust Policy for the IETF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:21:35 -0000


>> If you observe behavior in violation of these guidelines at an IETF
>> meeting, please do not be silent; formally object.
> What does that mean?  Let's say I hear two guys in the next row
> talking about product pricing.  I say, hey, you can't talk about that.
> They laugh at me and continue.  Now what?
> Or if this instruction or something like it goes into the Note Well,
> it's making every IETF attendee responsible for the behavior of
> everyone else.  If someone's hauled into court, they're going to say
> well, gee, the IETF specifically tells people to police anti-trust
> violations, nobody said anything to us about it, so the IETF agreed
> with what we did.
> I have trouble imagining a problem this mess is supposed to solve that
> is anywhere near as ugly as the swamp it's leading into.

I'd like to think that we do not need to assign someone to enforce the antitrust policy.

I see them a guidelines for proper behavior.  When we see someone do something surprising on a mail list (such as posting a job opening) they person gets a lot of private messages to stop.  If they continue, public messages follow.  This usually gets the behavior corrected.  This is in like with the story shared by Brian.