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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 24-Oct-22 14:04, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Oct 2022, at 11:45 am, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>    IETF participants should consult with IETF sources such as working
>>    group chairs, including IETF legal counsel as needed, to ensure
>>    that an investigation of these topics follows IETF rules and best
>>    practices.
> 
> As as WG chair, I do not want that responsibility -- and I have some amount of relevant legal training, unlike most. Competition law is highly contested, variable between jurisdictions, and ultimately only determined by a court.

Indeed, which is (I assume) why the draft scoped it to following IETF rules, not to following the law. I will of course bow to the IETF counsel's opinion...

    Brian
> 
> Concrete requirements and processes like this are a mistake, because in the reality of what we do, requiring consultation with Counsel will only result in this mechanism being used as a tactic to delay or stop work. The point of this document is to assure that we have a documented policy and have taken reasonable steps to prevent anti-competitive behaviour -- in particular, cartel behaviour -- in this venue. Our open processes and accountable decision-making are our best defence against any such accusations, and so the policy should be high-level. Compare with the W3C's:
>    https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2017/antitrust-guidance
> 
> Of course we shouldn't coordinate pricing of products or carve up territories between businesses --  those would be very odd discussions at the IETF, and prohibiting them is not onerous. Saying that we should involve Counsel every time we talk about what might be a new "market" (i.e., protocol or function) on the Internet is absurd on the face of it.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>