Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-06.txt

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jay,

> The second bullet of 4.2 is more complex and so, in order to better understand the concerns,  I offer two options that
> approach it from different angles to see if either might present a way forward.  That would see the text changing from:
> 
> * Entering into group negotiations of IPR terms.
>
> to something like:
>
> * Entering into private or potentially discriminatory, group 
> negotiations of IPR terms.
> 
> or something like:
> 
> * Entering into group negotiations of IPR terms, except in the 
> context of a policy intended to apply to the IETF as a whole.

Both alternatives are improvements, as the original text assumes that the reader understands what "group negotiations" are, and that understanding could easily differ between lawyers and non-lawyers.

I prefer the first alternative as it provides useful information on what sort of group negotiations are problematic.  In contrast, the second alternative looks like it was written by lawyers for lawyers, beyond which "policy intended to apply to the IETF as a whole" would seem to be a matter for the IESG or other I* body to deal with, not individual participants. 

Thanks, --David

David L. Black, Sr. Distinguished Engineer, Technology & Standards
Infrastructure Solutions Group, Dell Technologies
mobile [phone] [e-mail]

-----Original Message-----
From: antitrust-policy <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Jay Daley
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 6:32 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Stephan Wenger; Alissa Cooper; Jorge Contreras; Brad Biddle
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-06.txt


[EXTERNAL EMAIL] 

Having re-read all of the emails on 4.2 (topics requiring caution) I want to try to understand better if there is a way forward that people would be happy with.

For the first bullet, this seems a straightforward change to replace 'detailed' with 'unpublished' as that’s more precise and it avoids a subjective discussion about what 'detailed' means, and a better phrasing of the alternatives.  This would see the text changing from: 

* Using detailed market data to evaluate the relative implementation
costs of two technical alternatives to decide whether one is
significantly more feasible in the market and thus a better
candidate for standardization.

to: 

 * Using /unpublished/ market data to evaluate the relative 
implementation costs of /alternative technical proposals/ to decide
whether one is significantly more feasible in the market and thus 
a better candidate for standardization.


The second bullet of 4.2 is more complex and so, in order to better understand the concerns,  I offer two options that approach it from different angles to see if either might present a way forward.  That would see the text changing from:

* Entering into group negotiations of IPR terms.

to something like:

* Entering into private or potentially discriminatory, group 
negotiations of IPR terms.

or something like:

* Entering into group negotiations of IPR terms, except in the 
context of a policy intended to apply to the IETF as a whole.

Thoughts?

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]

_______________________________________________
antitrust-policy mailing list
[e-mail]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy__;!!LpKI!iPvHXwTaq4QmoPBy8ExoTNseTG4ns5q8HW5RtY_YvTHZgxEo5HeHXsfx9Y6o5JHhZ7CihWvxQ21ucvLh9sq0mFo$ [ietf[.]org]