Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-03.txt

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 4:12 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
>
> On 23/10/2022 23:39, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > It seems to me that you are making two arguments, one of which I think I
> > agree with and
> > one I do not.
> >
> > As noted in my review, I think the language in the draft is overbroad,
> and
> > I agree with
> > you that discussing whether a specific technical choice tends to
> reinforce
> > or reduce
> > entry barriers should in fact be in scope.
>
> Ack.
>
> >
> > I disagree, however, with your argument that as an academic you don't
> need
> > to
> > avoid certain topics, because, as noted by mnot and others, the question
> > is what conditions this creates for others. You are, of course, free to
> > raise
> > those topics in your own newsletter, Twitter, etc. but the question is
> what
> > are appropriate topics for the IETF.
>
> "As an academic" here is just an example. (A person working
> for a small commercial entity ought be in a similar position, but I'll
> stick with the example of an academic.) I think it
> ought be ok for an academic (without a CoI let's assume) to
> discuss the market position of entities involved in the IETF
> say when describing (potential) upcoming regulatory actions
> or legislation.
>
> In fact we had someone do more or less that when describing
> the digital markets act recently. I would think that was v.
> useful for IETF participants yet it involved directly doing
> what this draft says to not do. (As I read it.) I do think
> it wouldn't have been ok for e.g. an employee of Meta to be
> the one presenting in that case.
>

> Yes, that needs to be done carefully, (and was in the case
> above), but we ought not preclude it being done.
>

I don't recall this presentation, so I am unable to comment.

However, I think there is a difference between an invited talk for
general information and a specific discussion of market positions
in the context of the development of a standard. It does not
seem to me to be tenable to have different rules for people who
are differently situated.

-Ekr

>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
>
> >
> > -Ekr
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 3:24 PM Stephen Farrell <
> stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> (BTW, with regards the dispatch question I agree with ekr.)
> >>
> >> On 23/10/2022 23:11, Rob Sayre wrote:
> >>> I can't think of anything I would be interested in, but maybe I don't
> >>> understand your position.
> >>
> >> I read the draft as telling us we ought not discuss whether
> >> or not some proposed protocol design re-enforces the mobile
> >> OS duopoly.
> >>
> >> S.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Gendispatch mailing list
> >> Gendispatch@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
> >>
> >
>