Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-02.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 09 December 2021 19:42 UTC

To: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, gendispatch@ietf.org
References: <e59ab7e7-be49-d43b-b59e-149062292050@gmail.com> <67181001-2571-4ED7-86D4-EB003A033FBC@ietf.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb40127c-ac35-f18c-c280-93c3a71a5488@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:42:34 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <67181001-2571-4ED7-86D4-EB003A033FBC@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/UFmruPPChcUDWbVVVWCjfgjNO3s>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-02.txt
Precedence: list

Hi Jay,

On 09-Dec-21 19:15, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 8/12/2021, at 3:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I liked the positioning of the previous version, because it was
>> informative, but I disliked the fact that it was intended to be
>> a BCP for no good reason. I certainly had several issues with the
>> informative text that has now disappeared, but those all seemed
>> to be fixable.
>>
>> I dislike this version because it is less informative, and
>> because it is *really* pointless to tell people that they have
>> to obey the law, especially if you don't help them to understand
>> what the law might be. For most IETF participants, this will just
>> be a click-through item, whereas they could read the previous
>> draft and learn something.
> 
> The discussion in the gendispatch session at IETF 112 


I didn't have the fortitude to get up in the middle of the night for that.

> appeared to us authors to come to a clear-ish view - there should be two parts to this, the minimalist policy and the more effusive educational piece, 


I'm not sure that's necessary, but I have no particular objection.

> with the majority appearing to be of the view that the latter should not be an RFC.  Does that work for you?


I'm a bit concerned about how we'll establish rough consensus (not about the law, but about how to describe the law). But since it will be guidelines, not rules, I guess it's OK.

>>
>> Is there a legal theory that this document saying "thou shalt
>> obey the law" protects the IETF itself? If so, that might be
>> a reason for proceeding. Otherwise, I'm not sure what value
>> it has.
> 
> Yes, it’s the common-sense theory -
> 
> Prosecuting regulator: “Were you clear with IETF participants that the services, which you pay contractors to provide and are therefore legally liable for, should not be used to break the law?”


If that's the argument, then I think the document should observe that this changes nothing in past history and does not imply any change to the rules, but is only published now to clarify that the creation of IETF LLC changed nothing. (I'm confident that the authors can express that more elegantly.)

Regards
     Brian

[Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-gend… Joel M. Halpern
Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-… Salz, Rich
Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-… Joel M. Halpern
Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-… Salz, Rich
Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-… Jay Daley
Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-… Rob Sayre
Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-… Rob Sayre