Re: [antitrust-policy] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05.txt

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

The draft explicitly says that it does not change IETF policy.

Further, the text in question says that what has to be avoided is

  * Seeking clarifications about IPR disclosures, in a context when any
    such clarifications could be reasonably perceived as entering into
    group negotiations of IPR terms."

That is, what other RFCs already say, we MUST NOT enter into group 
negotiations about IPR terms.

This does not change the permission for WGs to decide to accept or 
reject an I-D based on the IPR terms.  Which is also spelled out in 
existing RFCs.

I am left confused as to what is the substance of the objection to the text?

Yours,

Joel

On 3/10/2023 6:09 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 3:05 PM Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Hi Jay,
>
>     Inline.
>
>     S.
>
>     *From: *Jay Daley <[e-mail]>
>     *Date: *Friday, March 10, 2023 at 01:33
>     *To: *Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>
>     *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>     *Subject: *Re: [antitrust-policy] I-D Action:
>     draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05.txt
>
>     Hi Stephan
>
>     A couple of questions:
>
>     > On 10 Mar 2023, at 02:02, Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >
>     […]
>     >
>     >     • Remove the second bullet of section 4.2.
>     > The second bullet here has IMO the potential to shift the
>     practices of the IETF in a direction appreciated primarily by
>     those offering technical alternatives under terms that are less
>     commercially attractive than other technical alternatives, and
>     secondarily by those with comparatively bigger antitrust
>     exposure.  Those changes would potentially disfavor organizations
>     not interested in monetarizing their IP, smaller entities,
>     academics, and individuals.  Upon reflection and re-reading posts
>     of others also addressing this bullet, I have come around to
>     suggest you remove this bullet in its entirety, as it may
>     constitute a policy change in practice, despite what the
>     (appreciated) clarifications in the doc declare.
>     > I believe—and I think you would concur—that nothing is wrong per
>     se with “Seeking clarifications about IPR disclosures”.  Doing so
>     may well be beneficial for the operation of the IETF; see my
>     example in my previous post, cited above.  Pointing out the
>     content of disclosures, including words like RAND or RAND-Z,
>     should be fine.  Even justifying one’s support of one technology
>     over another based on disclosure content should be fine.  I think
>     the line is crossed when people (presumably being affiliated with
>     competitors) start ganging up using their power to force a
>     supplier towards below market prices, independent on whether the
>     supplier supplies IP or something else.  That’s not something that
>     happens through mere clarification questions on IPR disclosures
>     though, and it may well happen in other contexts.  Such group
>     negotiation is a red flag (yes, I like that term and wish we
>     wouldn’t have removed it :-) and should be covered under 4.1.
>
>     So if this was replace with a bullet about "group negotiations" in
>     4.1 that gave an example related to IPR terms, would that in
>     principle be acceptable to you (recognising that depends on the
>     actual text)?
>
>     Yes, with this caveat: the example has to be narrow enough not to
>     discourage IPR related discussions in general.  I’m fine with
>     drawing a line when any of these factors come into play: a)
>     discussions about monetary terms (with the exception of
>     distinguishing between zero and non-zero, which I think is ok); or
>     b) group pressure requesting different terms (“I do not support
>     your tech unless you change to RAND-Z”, “me, too”, “+1”).
>
> I share Stephan's concern here. WGs absolutely should be able to 
> decide not to
> use technologies based on specific IPR terms. RANDZ is one such 
> example, but
> it's not the only one.
>
> Taking a step back, I would ask whether this is something that needs 
> fixing. Do we
> have cases of improper behavior taking place in this area? If not, 
> then I think this
> text would probably be better removed.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>     >
>     >     • Section 4.1, add buyer/licensee collusion.
>     > I leave the wordsmithing to folks with more experience, but I
>     think something like “discussion about supplier’s pricing
>     (including IP royalties)” needs to be added.  Perhaps with a
>     clarification like “it’s a cornerstone of the IETF’s IPR regime
>     that individuals make their own decisions regarding the monetary
>     or other price they are willing to pay for a technology, but that
>     price, especially when expressed in dollar values, must not be
>     discussed in an IETF setting.  Don’t ask, don’t tell.”.
>     >
>     >     • Section 4.1, “representatives from competitors”.
>     > As it is pointed out elsewhere in the doc, in the IETF, we
>     participate specifically NOT as representatives of our employers
>     but in an individual capacity only.  Insofar, logic suggests that
>     the paragraph as written does not apply to IETF participation but
>     rather states a general observation from which the IETF is safely
>     isolated due to its rather uncommon policy of individual
>     participation.  I think that this is a misperception that needs to
>     be addressed.
>
>     Do you mean something like "While individuals are expected to
>     participate as individuals, their actions can still be construed
>     as representing their employer, whatever their role.  Therefore,
>     participants should be aware that some topics are generally
>     inappropriate for discussion in a standards setting environment
>     where representatives from competitors to their employer are
>     likely to be present."?
>
>     Yes. Good text, thank you.
>
>
>     Jay
>
>     >
>     >     • Section 4.1, structure as a bullet list as the para, as
>     written, is close to unreadable? If not, why not?
>     > Rationale was previously provided.
>     >  Thanks,
>     > Stephan
>     >   From: antitrust-policy <[e-mail]> on
>     behalf of Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
>     > Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 06:50
>     > To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>     > Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>     > Subject: [antitrust-policy] Fwd: I-D Action:
>     draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05.txt
>     > antitrust-policy:      As noted below, the authors have posted a
>     new version of the antitrust draft.  We have tried to make more
>     clear that it is educational and informational material, and does
>     not change IETF policy.  As per suggestions, we have replaced the
>     red-flag / yellow flag descriptions with what we hope are clearer
>     descriptions of the categories.  Please read and comment on the
>     antitrust-policy list.
>     > Gendispatch:
>     >     We have been asked to provide a 10 minute presentation at
>     IETF 116 to discuss the dispatching of this draft.  Content
>     discussion, as per the announcements, is still on
>     antitrust-policy.  The slides will review the table of contents of
>     the draft, and then state the dispatch decision for any further
>     discussion by the WG.
>     > Thank you,
>     > Joel (and Brad and Jay)
>     >
>     >
>     > -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:
>     draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05.txt
>     > Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 06:46:06 -0800
>     > From: [e-mail]
>     > Reply-To: [e-mail]
>     > To: [e-mail]
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>     Internet-Drafts directories.
>     >
>     >
>     > Title : Antitrust Guidelines for IETF Participants
>     > Authors : Joel M. Halpern
>     > Brad Biddle
>     > Jay Daley
>     > Filename : draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05.txt
>     > Pages : 8
>     > Date : 2023-03-09
>     >
>     > Abstract:
>     > This document provides education and guidance for IETF participants
>     > on compliance with antitrust laws and how to reduce antitrust risks
>     > in connection with IETF activities.
>     >
>     >
>     > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>     >
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust/
>     >
>     > There is also an HTML version available at:
>     >
>     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05.html
>     >
>     > A diff from the previous version is available at:
>     >
>     https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05
>     >
>     >
>     > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at
>     rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > I-D-Announce mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>     > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>     > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > antitrust-policy mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>
>
>     -- 
>     Jay Daley
>     IETF Executive Director
>     [e-mail]
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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