Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-01.txt

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 04:40:13PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I agree with some of your proposals, and disagree with others.
> But I do not see any of the actual proposals as substantive enough to affect
> the dispatching concern.  They all seem things we can fairly discuss once
> dispatching has taken place.

Does that mean the authors will drop and forget input her from the list that
is not marked as "unless this issue is resolve, i will not recommend for this
document to be dispatched" ?

To repeat here on the list what i said during the WG meeting:

I do not recommend for this document to be dispatched until it is
clearer written down agreed to, what actually the goal is. And i see two potentially
 even conflicting possible goals:

a) To put into writing sufficient 'Cover My Behind' statements to protect
the IETF from legal action in case participants partake in anti-trust
behavior. This is not mentioned as a goal in the draft, but i have the
strong believ that this must have played a role on writing this document.
And i do support such a document, but it should explicitly state that
purpose.

b) A document that is really intended to help participants to understand
how to not get into anti-trust law issues. This is what the document claims
it wants to achieve, but quite frankly i do not even understand the most
basic connection between this goal and being an "IETF participant".

E.g.: what legal differences does it make for my compliance (or lack thereof) with
anti-trust laws if my actions are performed at the IETF or at any other
place ? Lets say when i am getting together "privately for dinner" at an evening
of an IETF week with a bunch of folks i know who happen to also attend the
IETF, and discuss exactly the same stuff there ? Unless there are really
strange laws (which i would be curious to learn about), i'd say the only
difference is (a), aka.: possible implication of the IETF into legal
actions caused by its participants ("sponsoring anti-trust behavior").

I also think that for (a), we do not necessary need to add more explanatory
text (however unfortunate i would think that is), but if the goal is (b),
and someone like me is supposed to understand the guidance, then i'd certainly
be asking for more explanatory text to be put into the document.

So, i really can't see how we can dispatch a document without being clearer
about this goal. And if it is just me being confused here, great, please 
unconfuse me.

Cheers
    Toerless