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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

As far as I can tell Rob, you are asking to remove words that have 
value.  I do not understand any of your requests for removal.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/5/2021 12:50 AM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> Another suggestion from the list:
> "As the old joke goes, if this were legal advice you would know because 
> it would have a bill attached."
> 
> It's a good point. So, by that rationale, it seems safe to strike "This 
> document does not contain legal advice".
> 
> thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 5:44 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     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]
>     <mailto:[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]>
>         <mailto:[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/>>
>          >     <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
>          >
> 
>