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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 20 January 2012 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9186121F84D2 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:21:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.509
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9UMA5Nj3Ix6j for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:21:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A5F921F84CE for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212DD9A479A; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:21:38 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SE2lF8MbM3jY; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:21:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.2.104] (pool-96-241-165-215.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.165.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (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 <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120115212301.36291.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:21:30 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7B596953-050E-4388-BC9D-60BDFE0505A2@vigilsec.com>
References: <20120115212301.36291.qmail@joyce.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Who enforces an Antitrust Policy for the IETF
X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." <antitrust-policy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/antitrust-policy>
List-Post: <mailto:antitrust-policy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:21:35 -0000

John:

>> 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.

Russ