Based on the length of this thread, it is clear to me that more discussion is
needed, but I do not think that the IETF mail list is the place to have it.
So, the antitrust-policy mail list has been set up to continue the discussion.
It is clear to me that many people are questioning what would
--On Saturday, December 03, 2011 08:43 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
We should ask a specific concrete question to a litigator who
understands antitrust law: are there any significant gaps in
the IETF process rules, including the formal Note Well warning
On Nov 28, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I don't know what an antitrust policy is... Could you explain?
Is this something like a conflict of interest policy? Or is it a policy to
avoid situations where we might be engaging in some sort of collusion?
I'm not Russ, but
On 12/3/2011 9:22 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
In the IETF, I would expect that an antitrust policy would prevent individual
companies or blocks of companies from controlling decisions or processes that
might have the effect of preventing or discriminating against competition.
That language looks
: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
On 11/28/11 12:58 , Jorge Contreras wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM, GTW g...@gtwassociates.com
mailto:g...@gtwassociates.com wrote:
__
Ted, I like your approach of enquiring what problem we are striving
to solve and I like Russ's concise answer
On 1 Dec 2011, at 17:09, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
Unfortunately, lawyers on the whole tend to
suggest solutions to problems that create additional legal work.
… such as, an antitrust policy for the IETF...
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:24 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Rather than trying to set up rules that cover all hypothetical developments,
I would suggest
a practical approach. In our process, disputes are materialized by an appeal.
Specific legal
advice on the handling of a specific appeal
On 1 Dec 2011, at 17:09, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
Unfortunately, lawyers on the whole tend to
suggest solutions to problems that create additional legal work.
Not that other specialists are free of this problem...
Programmer's Secret Understanding
1 It's more fun to
On 11/29/2011 7:24 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:37:09AM -0500, Donald Eastlake wrote:
(c) The IETF does not have any members
The governance of the I* is complicated but I don't think any court
would have any trouble finding that, for some purposes, the membership of
the
On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:12 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:24 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Rather than trying to set up rules that cover all hypothetical
developments, I would suggest
a practical approach. In our process, disputes are materialized by an
appeal.
cntre...@gmail.com
Cc: Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com; IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org; IETF
ietf@ietf.org; IESG i...@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:44 PM
Subject: RE: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
Note that the suit does not complain about the 3GPP and ETSI rules. It
alleges instead
I side with those who focus on solving real problems not hypothetical problems,
Does this mean that those who have not had a car accident should not carry auto
insurance? Should those who have not had their house suffer damage from wind,
rain, flood or fire or had someone sue them after
This appears to be based on the view that an external legal process is
amenable to the IETF's internal procedures. Of course, it isn't.
Once there is a lawsuit, we are locked in to the procedures and authority of
the courts and to the existing facts leading up to the lawsuit. Post-hoc
On 2011-12-03 06:12, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:24 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Rather than trying to set up rules that cover all hypothetical
developments, I would suggest
a practical approach. In our process, disputes are materialized by an
appeal. Specific
Message -
From: Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net
To: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
I side with those who focus on solving real problems not hypothetical
problems,
Does this mean that those who have not had
Does this mean that those who have not had a car accident should not carry
auto
insurance? Should those who have not had their house suffer damage from wind,
rain, flood or fire or had someone sue them after slipping on the sidewalk
should not have homeowner's insurance?
What does insurance
On 11/28/11 12:58 , Jorge Contreras wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM, GTW g...@gtwassociates.com
mailto:g...@gtwassociates.com wrote:
__
Ted, I like your approach of enquiring what problem we are striving
to solve and I like Russ's concise answer that it is Recent suits
From: IETF Chair [ch...@ietf.org]
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought
to have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is
needed.
My first observation is that the IETF legal counsel is a lawyer, so we
have that covered. Then I thought about it
-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel
jaeggli
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:56 AM
To: Jorge Contreras
Cc: Ted Hardie; IETF Chair; IETF; IESG
Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
On 11/28/11 12:58 , Jorge Contreras wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2
abstract rulemaking.
-- Christian Huitema
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel
jaeggli
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:56 AM
To: Jorge Contreras
Cc: Ted Hardie; IETF Chair; IETF; IESG
Subject: Re: An Antitrust
Rather than trying to set up rules that cover all hypothetical developments, I
would suggest
a practical approach. In our process, disputes are materialized by an appeal.
Specific legal
advice on the handling of a specific appeal is much more practical than
abstract rulemaking.
+1
This has
- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
To: IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org
Cc: Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com; IETF ietf@ietf.org; IESG
i...@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 10:00 PM
On 2011-11-29 08:10, IETF Chair wrote:
Ted:
I think we should be
On 28/11/2011 19:38, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Sam;
Wearing no hats. This is my own personal take on matters.
Also, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Please note that I, personally, do not
think that this will be trivial or easy to come up with.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:38 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 10:50 28-11-2011, IETF Chair wrote:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to
have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a
way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a
On 11/28/2011 1:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think we should be very careful before creating makework for a lawyer.
In other words there are two initial questions that need to be answered:
1. What is the threat model? What type of exposure*of the IETF itself*
(including its volunteer
Tl;dr version: I think that there is value in having IETF legal counsel
evaluate us against other SDOs specifically regarding considerations around
membership (or lack thereof), voting (or lack thereof), and openness (or lack
thereof).
That would help us to determine if this is really something
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:37:09AM -0500, Donald Eastlake wrote:
(c) The IETF does not have any members
The governance of the I* is complicated but I don't think any court
would have any trouble finding that, for some purposes, the membership
of the IETF is those qualified to serve as
imiho, the issue is a balance between participants who are educated on
dangerous behavior and a bunch of rules with which the well-known and
new amateur nit pickers drive us crazy.
randy
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Hi Russ,
I don't know what an antitrust policy is... Could you explain?
Is this something like a conflict of interest policy? Or is it a policy to
avoid situations where we might be engaging in some sort of collusion?
Your plan sounds fine to me, on general principles, but I'd like to know
On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I looked at the antitrust policies of other SDOs. They state the things that
are prohibited from discussion at their meetings and on their mail lists.
Oh, I've been involved in some industry SDOs that had something like this...
Rules against
--On Monday, November 28, 2011 14:10 -0500 IETF Chair
ch...@ietf.org wrote:
Ted:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the
IETF ought to have an antitrust policy. To address this
need, a lawyer is needed. As a way forward, I suggest that
IASA pay a lawyer to come up
Hi SM,
On Nov 29, 2011, at 1:38 AM, SM wrote:
There isn't any information about why an antitrust policy is needed except
for a suggestion from an insurance agent.
It was mentioned that the IETF counsel indicated that such a policy is needed.
Addressing some of your point:
As far as I
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 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
I think that this is a very reasonable way to proceed.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:50 PM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to
have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed.
While _a_ lawyer is certainly
I support the general approach you outline in terms of process.
However it would really help me if you could write a non-normative
paragraph describing what you think is involved in an anti-trust policy?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
a) It would seem sensible to leave the selection of the specific lawyer
to the IASA / IAOC.
b) I would hope that they will select a lawyer with specific exposure to
anti-trust issues. That may well turn out to be the existing IETF counsel.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/28/2011 1:57 PM, Marshall Eubanks
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 01:50:51PM -0500, IETF Chair wrote:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to
have an antitrust policy.
Did they say what problem it is they're worried about? I can't
respond to the merits without knowing why we might want to do this.
A
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:50 AM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to
have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a
way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial
Sam:
I looked at the antitrust policies of other SDOs. They state the things that
are prohibited from discussion at their meetings and on their mail lists.
Russ
On Nov 28, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I support the general approach you outline in terms of process.
However it
Ted:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to
have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a
way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial
draft, and then this draft be brought to the community for
On 11/28/2011 10:59 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:.
However it would really help me if you could write a non-normative
paragraph describing what you think is involved in an anti-trust policy?
I'll suggest that that be the first work product of the attorney. At the least,
that will make sure that
Russ == Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes:
Russ Sam: I looked at the antitrust policies of other SDOs. They
Russ state the things that are prohibited from discussion at their
Russ meetings and on their mail lists.
OK, that sounds good. I definitely think we could use such a
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
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
Dear Sam;
Wearing no hats. This is my own personal take on matters.
Also, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Please note that I, personally, do not
think that this will be trivial or easy to come up with.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Sam Hartman wrote:
I support the general approach you outline in terms of process.
However it would really help me if you could write a non-normative
paragraph describing what you think is involved in an anti-trust policy?
Yes, please! Also, why it would be a different
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF
ought to have an antitrust policy.
I would be interested in a brief explanation of why we need one now,
since we have gotten along without one for multiple decades.
Having worked with a lot of lawyers, my experience is that few
. Willingmyre, P.E.
President, GTW Associates
1012 Parrs Ridge Drive
Spencerville, MD 20868 USA
1.301.421.4138
- Original Message -
From: IETF Chair
To: Ted Hardie
Cc: IETF ; IESG
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
Ted
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM, GTW g...@gtwassociates.com wrote:
**
Ted, I like your approach of enquiring what problem we are striving to
solve and I like Russ's concise answer that it is Recent suits against
other SDOs that is the source of the concern
Russ, what are some of the
On 2011-11-29 08:10, IETF Chair wrote:
Ted:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to
have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a
way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial
draft, and then this
] 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 ch...@ietf.org wrote:
Sorry, can you expand on the threat model here? Are we developing one in
order to defend
+1 to all of John's points here. Especially about the essential nature
of lawyers - I've worked with plenty of them as well.
Ned
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF
ought to have an antitrust policy.
I would be interested in a
I'm still lost.
What kind of things would the IETF have to prohibit discussion of, and
specifically things that would involve anti-trust.
Russ == Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes:
Russ I looked at the antitrust policies of other SDOs. They state
Russ the things that are
Michael == Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca writes:
Michael I'm still lost.
Michael What kind of things would the IETF have to prohibit
Michael discussion of, and specifically things that would involve
Michael anti-trust.
Cisco and Juniper folks form a design-team
: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
I'm still lost.
What kind of things would the IETF have to prohibit discussion of, and
specifically things that would involve anti-trust.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 11/28/2011 12:31 PM, John Levine wrote:
I would be interested in a brief explanation of why we need one now,
since we have gotten along without one for multiple decades.
Having worked with a lot of lawyers, my experience is that few lawyers
understand cost-benefit tradeoffs, and often
Message -
From: IETF Chair
To: Ted Hardie
Cc: IETF ; IESG
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
Ted:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to
have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer
From: Marshall Eubanks marshall.euba...@gmail.com
As you may know, SDO's have a certain protection against antitrust
actions, but that is not absolute, and can be lost if the SDO behaves
inappropriately.
Ironically, it was concern about anti-trust suits which led to the
Here is some relevant language from the Complaint:
100. By their failures to monitor and enforce the SSO Rules, and to
respond to TruePosition's specific complaints concerning violations of the
SSO Rules, 3GPP and ETSI have acquiesced in, are responsible for, and
complicit in, the abuse of
On 2011-11-29 14:51, John Levine wrote:
Here is some relevant language from the Complaint:
100. By their failures to monitor and enforce the SSO Rules, and to
respond to TruePosition's specific complaints concerning violations of the
SSO Rules, 3GPP and ETSI have acquiesced in, are
As I read that, we'd be much better off having no antitrust policy
at all. Any volunteers to monitor and enforce whatever policy our
lawyer invents?
John, if they'd had no relevant rules, it would probably have read
100. By their failures to promulgate appropriate SSO Rules, ...
Quite
Ironically, it was concern about anti-trust suits which led to the creation
of the ISOC, and the re-homing of the IETF under the ISOC, in the first place
(back in the fall of 1989).
Not only that. The current IETF rules were specifically designed with antitrust
considerations in mind. The
At 10:50 28-11-2011, IETF Chair wrote:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF
ought to have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer
is needed. As a way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to
come up with an initial draft, and then this draft be
63 matches
Mail list logo
