Dave,
IANAL and IMHO:
I'm not sure I see the problem. Admittedly, the IETF is not itself
incorporated, but it clearly has "officers" in the corporate sense,
i.e., the IESG, the IAB, the NomCom, and everybody appointed by those
bodies, including WG chairs, IETF liaisons to other SDOs, and IETF
Trust members. So, when I was one of those people, if I stood up in
a meeting and proclaimed "The IETF believes that given enough thrust,
pigs can fly", that would be "officially" representing the IETF.
The matter is even clearer for IETF LLC officers and staff, because
that is a corporation (as the Trust will be soon).
Also, antitrust behaviour is always proscribed, for everybody, anytime,
anywhere. All that section 2.3 is doing is observing that if someone
commits an antitrust violation *while speaking for the IETF*, the IETF
itself is exposed. It wouldn't really matter if the word "officially"
was removed.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 30-Jun-24 01:48, Dave Lawrence wrote:
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.
I also stumbled on this sentence, but because of "officially
representing". What does it mean to be "officially representing the
IETF"? I don't see it described or incorporated by reference.
The three other occurrences of "represent" deal with the relationship
of participants to their employers. "Official" appears one other time
as part of a title in the BCP9 reference, for a document that seems
unlikely to provide useful guidance on the question.
The "in any capacity" does seem to broaden things quite a lot, but I
still get hung up on the first two words. Maybe it's a term of art in
the antitrust world, of which I am merely ignorant? It would benefit
from a few more words of explanation.
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
