Re: [antitrust-policy] Easy to quibble, so my strawman

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Two things:
>
> On 1.20.2012 16:05 , "Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>I've no idea if this is very useful but in the spirit of not
>>just quibbling, here's a quick not very thoughtful strawman
>>for what I think we might usefully say on this topic.
>
> This would be an excellent starting point for an FAQ (minus the one issue
> below, perhaps).  But I wonder what that insurance agent would say about
> it...  the whole discussion started with an insurance agent wanted to see
> paperwork, wasn't it?
>

I agree, this reads very much like a FAQ and would a good start for one.

>>
>>S.
>>
>>There's a thing called anti-trust in the US and competition law in
>>the EU and probably other things elsewhere.  Basically, the idea
>>is to prevent some companies ganging up on others and being bold.
>>In theory, the IETF could get dragged into some dispute related to
>>that, or to some government or regulatory investigation of that
>>kind of thing. We'd rather not.
>>
>>So, please check that out and don't be bold.
>>
>>If you don't know what this means then go looking and ask your
>>boss. If you don't have a boss, there's probably no damage you can
>>do here if you're not a WG chair or something. If you are a WG
>>chair or something then ask on the wgchairs list if you don't know
>>what to do.
>>
>>For most IETF participants, someone in your organisation should
>>understand what it means to be good about this. So start by asking
>>locally.
>>
>>But remember, for the IETF its the technical content that matters
>>most, not all this policy stuff.
>>
>>Need examples?
>>
>>- A bunch of companies having a secret meeting where they agree to
>>promote or try kill some Internet-draft for non-technical reason
>>would be a bad thing here.
>
> What a bunch of companies do in a _secret_ meeting may or may not be
> anticompetitive, but it certainly does not concern the IETF.  As I
> understand it, the goal of this exercise is not to prevent companies or
> participants from being stupid (in non-IETF settings).
>

(Treating this as a FAQ) I would simply add

That is why it is important to follow the IETF rules about open
meetings, proper advance notice of
meetings, and confirming decisions reached in face to face meetings on
the appropriate open mail list.

Regards
Marshall



>>
>>- Saying that a WG should only work on an I-D if an IPR
>>declaration's terms are changed to 1% of net revenue would not be
>>appropriate.
>>
>>- It is ok to say "I don't understand your IPR declaration - what
>>does <that bit> mean?" But its not ok to haggle with the IPR
>>holder.
>>
>>A mixture of common sense, reading about the topic and checking
>>with any local bosses should get you to where you know what's
>>appropriate and what's not.
>>
>>If not, then ask. Send a mail to [e-mail] and you
>>may get an answer. (It won't be legal advice or anything but it
>>might help.)
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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