Re: [antitrust-policy] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust/

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 22 Feb 2023, at 7:46, Joel Halpern wrote:

> When this was dispatched, I said I would poke folks again.
>
> The authors would very much appreciate comments, opinions, and better 
> discussion of, this draft.  We would like to be able to submit a 
> revision addressing concerns by the cutoff, to align with the ADs 
> goal.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Joel

I agree with Mirja and Christian's concerns. Two other bits, almost 
entirely editorial:

First, in 4.1: "employee compensation or benefits among potentially 
competitive employers". I'm pretty sure what you're referring to here 
are things like wage-fixing and anti-poaching agreements, but this 
sounds like I can't talk to you about my salary, which I don't think is 
what you mean. Seems like throughout these sections, speaking in terms 
of specific examples instead of trying to be broad would clarify things 
greatly.

Second, and this is completely a matter of style: There are places where 
the use of the term "antitrust" is a bit counter-intuitive if you don't 
already know what's meant. For instance, in 2.3, it talks about 
engagement in "problematic antitrust behavior". The funny thing about 
that phrase is that, given the the literal meaning, you want behavior 
that is not engaging in trusts; "antitrust behavior" is the good thing 
and "trust behavior" would be the bad thing. And I do understand that 
the word is now a term of art and refers to the name used in US 
competitiveness laws, but I think it may sound weird to non-experts. If 
you instead used "competitive", "anti-competitive", and "competition" 
throughout, I think the document might be clearer to non-experts (or 
even non-native English speakers). But again, this is a purely stylistic 
comment and the current language is fine if you decide not to change it.

Cheers,

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best