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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

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
>