Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-00.txt

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

OK in the interest of moving forward productively, although I sincerely
doubt any IETF participant needs to read up:

> 5.  Recommended Behavior

Instead:
5. Topics That Concern Competition

> As the IETF is a standards development environment where
> representatives from competitors are highly likely to be present,
> participants should not discuss the following topics:

Instead:
As the IETF is a standards development environment where representatives
from competitors are highly likely to be present, participants should be
aware that the following topics may raise antitrust concerns.... [list]

> While not all discussions of these topics would necessarily be
> antitrust violations, prudence suggests that avoiding these topics
> altogether best mitigates antitrust risks.

[delete]

thanks,
Rob


On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 5:01 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I do not recall that BoF.  I presume it occurred.  I even presume I was
> there.
>
> However, after nine years it is not unreasonable to take another look.
> And when I looked, it seemed to me that getting something explicit in
> the Note Well would be good for IETF participants, the IETF as a whole,
> and even for the companies which send people to the IETF.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 9/4/2021 7:47 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 4:27 PM Brian E Carpenter
> > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> >
> >      > I thought the proposed BCP seemed destined for this page:
> >      > https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/>
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/>>
> >
> >     Not necessarily. The lawyers can tell us, but it seems to me that the
> >     warnings on the Note Well are there to protect the IETF itself,
> whereas
> >     this document is more aimed at warning participants to protect
> >     themselves.
> >
> >
> > Well, you just wrote "Or maybe we should just wait until somebody gets
> > sued and blames the IETF for not warning them."
> >
> > That seemed to indicate you think the document is meant to protect the
> > IETF. Maybe I misunderstood.
> >
> >     If so, it doesn't necessarily need to be a BCP. If indeed it's
> >     considered
> >     necessary to protect the IETF itself, the whole discussion changes
> tone.
> >
> >
> > Agree.
> >
> >     By the way, I recommend reading Jorge Contreras's slides cited in
> >     the LLC's
> >     statement.
> >
> >
> > I did, and it was not the first time. Several slides seem to be
> > truncated (maybe just some software incompatibility creeping in).
> >
> > For example, Slide 4 ends with "Excluding technology/participants for"
> ...?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Rob
> >
>