In a different venue it was suggested to me that the group (a university-based research consortium) NOT have a detailed anti-trust policy. The university's law firm felt that we would be covered so long as we up front reminded the participants that they were adults and needed to follow the appropriate anti-trust laws appropriate to their circumstance and jurisdiction. Saying so once when they joined was thought to be more than sufficient.
The IETF does not have members, so we do not have the luxury of distinguishing between members and the unwashed masses. So, if the anti-trust policy is a one sentence line in the NOTE WELL telling folks to remember to be law abiding, then I am all for it. If the anti-trust policy is a statement that must be read before every meeting, call, and email exchange, and that the IETF is responsible for monitoring mail lists to ensure that no anti-competitive behavior is occurring, and that the IETF is taking active measures to halt anti-competitive behavior, like removing emails from archives, monitoring Jabber sessions and terminating participants in real time, etc., then I am against it. On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, IETF Chair <ch...@ietf.org> wrote: >> Sorry, can you expand on the threat model here? Are we developing one in >> order to defend against some specific worry about our not having one? >> Because it has become best practice in other SDOs? Because the insurance >> agent wishes to see something in particular? >> >> I hesitate to develop something that we have not needed in the past unless >> it is clear what benefit it gives us. In particular, if we develop one >> without some particular characteristic, do we lose the benefits of being >> where we are now? > > Recent suits against other SDOs is the source of the concern. The idea is t > make it clear which topics are off limits at IETF meetings and on IETF mail > lists. In this way, if such discussions take place, the good name of the > IETF can be kept clean. > > Russ > > Hmm, I would characterize our previous policy as a quite public statement > that no one is excluded from IETF discussion and decision making, along with > with reminders that what we are deciding is the technical standard, not the > resulting marketplace. What we can say beyond that without diving into > national specifics is obscure to me. > > I agree with Dave that the first work product of an attorney should be a > non-normative explanation to the community of how having such a policy helps > and what it must say in order to get that benefit. > > (I have to say that my personal experience is that prophylactic measures > against law suits tend to change the terms of the suits but not their > existence. In this case, suing someone because they did not enforce the > policy or the policy did not cover some specific jurisdiction's requirements > perfectly, seems like the next step. Your mileage may vary.) > > regards, > > Ted > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
