Hi Adrian > On 18 May 2024, at 09:39, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks to Joel and Jay for working on this document. It would be useful to have it published as an RFC. > Non-nits: > People are often confused by side meetings, bar BoFs, and corridors. It might be helpful to clarify that: > - antitrust applies everywhere and to everyone > - antitrust in an IETF context applies to any behaviour related to IETF activity or the production of IETF specifications. > It would be helpful to give advice about avoiding the appearance or accusation of antitrust behaviour. Viz, hold conversations in public fora. My initial thought is that if we need guidance as to when this applies then that should be when the Note Well applies, but I will note this for the authors to discuss. > > > Nits: > Introduction. Final sentence. > "intended"? Does it ir doesn’t it? Agree - should be just "nothing in this document changes". > "falls within"? I don't think behaviour falls within a policy. Maybe "covered by"? Will discuss - perhaps "falls within the scope" > Section 2.1 > "these kinds of legal issues" You haven’t mentioned and legal issues, just the names applied in so.e jurisdictions. I think that’s just a matter of style but will discuss. > Section 2.1 > You say that the terms are used synonymously twice. > Perhaps you wanted to emphasise the point, but you could delete the 1st sentance and s/here/in this document/ Again I think that’s just a matter of style but will discuss. > Section 2.2 > "says [DOJ]" and "[EC] states" is slightly inconsistent Agree. > Section 2.3 > "problematic antitrust behavior" (twice) > Why do you include the word "problematic"? Is it OK to engage in antitrust behavior so long as it is not "problematic"? Good question - will discuss. > Section 2.3 (possibly not a nit) > Isn't the second point that the IETF must avoid liability from being complicit in or facilitating antitrust behaviour? This is a bit lost in "even if". No, there’s a difference between does it happen and are we complicit/facilitating. This document intentionally does not go into the latter. > Section 3 > "The IETF framework that participants engage in their individual capacity" > Possibly s/in/in in/ I think the text is correct - imagine parentheses around "participants…." (which can’t be added as this is not a quote). > Section 4 > s/3 above./3./ That’s auto-generated so I will investigate. > Section 4 > Bullets missing periods Different authors, different styles but yes better to be consistent. thanks Jay > Cheers, > Adrian > >> >> On 17/05/2024 21:16 BST The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the >> following document: - 'Antitrust Guidelines for IETF Participants' >> <draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt> as Informational RFC >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final >> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2024-06-14. Exceptionally, comments may >> be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning >> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> Abstract >> This document provides education and guidance for IETF participants >> on compliance with antitrust laws and how to reduce antitrust risks >> in connection with IETF activities. >> The file can be obtained via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list -- ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-announce-leave@xxxxxxxx -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-director@xxxxxxxx -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
