fwiw - the last time I looked at this law
1/ the IETF did not qualify as a SDO under the law
2/ the law only protected employees of the SDO, not participants
Scott
On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> +1
>
> It would be helpful in the non normative statement to the community to cite
> what suits were are involved, what was the cause of action and what if any
> decisions were rendered in these cases.
>
> US antitrust law, for instance has specific exemptions for SDO’s.
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_108-237/Title_I
>
> There are some requirements under this act that SDO’s need to file a
> statement of purpose. I don’t know if we ever did that.
>
> In general, however this sounds like a sound and valuable move.
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ted
> Hardie
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:27 PM
> To: IETF Chair
> Cc: IETF; IESG
> Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, IETF Chair <[email protected]> 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
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
