Thank you to all those who commented on this document. My co-author and I have discussed the feedback raised and intend to submit an -09 revision with the following changes in response to the feedback received: 1, Applicability. Raised both by Adrian Farrel: > 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. and Geoff Huston: > 1. In Section 2.3 the text relating to "anyone who is officially > representing the IETF, in any capacity" does not qualify the circumstances > as to when such problematic antitrust behavior is proscribed. Do the > authors intend this proscription be be in effect only when the individual is > performing their representative duties, or is there an intrention that this > proscription applies at all times to individuals who undertake such > representation tasks? Some clarification in the text may be appropriate > here. > > 2. In Section 2.3 is says: "the IETF cannot be a forum where participants > engage in problematic antitrust behavior". What is being referred to here? I _assume_ this means postings to IETF mailing lists, and comments and > comversations in Working group sessions, BOF sessions and plenary sessions at IETF meetings, including virtual meetings. Is this intended to encompass the entirety of actions that may occur at an IETF venue, or is it limited to IETF activities relating to standards-making. Again some clarification might be helpful here. We do not believe that any change should be made to address this. This is because any statement of applicability, beyond the existing "IETF activities" which is used both here and in the NoteWell, could be considered as setting new policy; and because the essence of the document is to educate/warn people on illegal behaviour and it would be misleading to suggest that certain behaviour is only illegal in certain circumstances. 2. New recommendation in section 4.1. This was raised by Russ Housley: > First, I keep stumbling on the last paragraph in Section 4.1. The existing test does not offer a recommendation, which is what Section 4 is all about. > Perhaps: > "IETF participants are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that does not violate any antitrust laws or regulations. While antitrust law reaches beyond the topics listed above, IETF participants should avoid any behavior that can be seen as an improper attempt to restrain marketplace competition or facilitate monopolization of a particular market." > I am not sure this es exactly right, and it overlaps with the point of Section 4.2. We do not believe any substantive change should be made to address this, but a text tidy up is warranted. This is both because adding a new recommendation would open this for further discussion which we do not think is productive, and because this as an educational document and so it is reasonable that there are things we simply warn about and do not recommend about. However, we think the stumbling here is likely caused by the final line of 4.1 "Participants are responsible for ensuring that their conduct does not violate any antitrust laws or regulations." which implies a recommendation about the previous sentence. This line also duplicates part of the first sentence of 4.2 "All IETF participants are expected to behave lawfully when engaged in IETF activities, including by following applicable antitrust law" and so we plan to replace that latter sentence with the former ' All IETF participants are responsible for ensuring that their conduct does not violate any antitrust laws or regulations." 3. Missing reference. Raised by Russ Housley (and previously by others on the list): > Second, in Section 4.3, I think it would be helpful to provide a reference for the IETF LLC whistleblower service. > I assume that will point to: https://www.ietf.org/administration/policies-procedures/whistleblower/ There was a reluctance to add this earlier during the development of the document due to the intentionally ephemeral nature of website URLs but that is a separate issue not to be addressed here, and so this reference has been added. 4. Change the quotes in section 2.2 (from competition authorities) to something more 'formal'. Raised both by Julian Reschke: > the text could use <blockquote>. and Susan Hares: > indent quotes will clearly specify what US and EC states. > Also, provide references to quotes for sections. This is intended as a narrative paragraph to explain the legal context of the document and so the quotes are quite different from, say, quoting a normative specification. In that context we think these quotes are appropriately included. 5. Change "problematic antitrust behavior". Raised by Adrian Farrel. > "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"? Changed to "anti-competitive behavior" 6. Complicity. Raised by Adrian Farrel: > 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". As noted in my reply to Adrian - there’s a difference between does it happen and are we complicit/facilitating. This document intentionally does not go into the latter. 7. Change "...nothing in this document is intended to change existing…" in Introduction. Raised by Adrian Farrel: > "intended"? Does it ir doesn’t it? and > "falls within"? I don't think behaviour falls within a policy. Maybe "covered by"? This whole sentence has been changed from "Nothing in this document is intended to change existing IETF policies or to prohibit lawful behavior that falls within those policies by IETF participants" to "Nothing in this document changes existing IETF policies or is intended to prohibit lawful behavior". 8. Change "legal issues" in 2.1 terminology. Raised by Adrian Farrel: > "these kinds of legal issues" You haven’t mentioned and legal issues, just the names applied in so.e jurisdictions. Changed to "this general area of law". 9. Change "Most acutely" in section 2.3. Raised by Susan Hares: > * Most acutely, the IETF cannot have anyone who is officially > representing the IETF, in any capacity, engage in problematic > antitrust behavior and create liability for the IETF./ > > editorial suggestion: "Most acutely" is not needed and confuses the sentence. This text is intentional, and establishes that the first of the two points is the most important. 10. Everything else. Of the remaining suggestions, we have addressed a couple of minor text nits, but on the whole we consider these unnecessary changes or optimisations and so have not incorporated any. Once again, thanks to all of the reviewers. An -09 revision will be posted shortly. Jay -- 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
