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 know: > > (a) The IETF is not a legal entity Although the IETF is not, in itself, a legal entity, the IETF is an organized activity of the Internet Society (ISOC), which is a corporation. ISOC holds the insurance for the IETF, and can be sued. ISOC is also the major funding source for the IETF. While it might be possible for the IETF to reorganize under another parent organization if ISOC were sued out of existence, that would probably result in significant disruption to our work. > (b) The IETF Trust holds and manages rights on behalf of the IETF This is true, but the IETF Trust isn't the most likely to be involved in an anti-competitive lawsuit. The IETF Trust would get involved if we were accused of violating someone else's copyright, but if we were accused of having policies (or a lack of policies, or a lack of following our own policies) that results in anti-competitive practices, then I believe that ISOC would be more likely to be named in a suit than the IETF Trust. Individuals can also be sued based on their roles in the IETF process -- the IETF chair, ADs, WG Chairs, etc. ISOC holds insurance to protect us if we are sued for something we do in one of our IETF roles. > (c) The IETF does not have any members I am not sure why this matters... There are people (working for companies) that participate in meetings and standards-setting activities at the IETF. I suspect that most anti-competitive activities happen between two or three parties in a boardroom, or in a coffee shop -- you don't have to be official members of an organization to commit this sort of crime. > (d) People participate in the IETF as individuals This is likely not true, from a legal perspective. Most people are sent by their companies to participate in the IETF, they are paid by their companies to do IETF work, and they put their company names on their IETF documents. There is some sense in which this is true -- we appoint individuals to positions, not companies, etc. But, I don't think it is true in a way that protects us from anti-competitive activity. > (e) This Standard-Setting Organization (SSO) is open I've been told, when working in industry standards bodies, that there are a number of properties that you need to have in order to be the type of standards body that is protected, legally, from being considered an anti-competitive activity. If I understand correctly (and I am not a lawyer), being open to any company that wants to join is one of those properties, but it isn't the only one. Personally, I think we're probably already doing most of the things we ought to be doing to avoid anti-competitive practices. In cases where people have tried to talk about pricing, or business models (in the financial, not technical sense), I've seen WG chairs and other people shut down those conversations as not appropriate for the IETF. I've also seen us push back against situations where it appears that a small number of participants have reached a decision amongst themselves that they are trying to push through a WG. If we can get a policy that raises awareness of these things, by telling us what constitutes anti-competitive activity in a standards body, so we can be better informed in our attempts to avoid doing those things, that is fine. I would hate to see us have a policy that requires a lot more administrative overhead (such as a staff person in every WG meeting to ensure no anti-competitive activities happen), or significant changes to the way we do our work ( such as recorded votes), though. > (f) The IETF does not vote > > If decisions are taken by consensus and the decision-making is fair, there isn't a capturing party. I don't think this is completely true, either in theory or practice... In many cases, there is one company that is driving a particular IETF work product. We've had cases where the preponderance of authors, WG chairs and the responsible ADs for a given work item are from a single company, and all consensus is matter of judgement by those people. Hopefully we have enough checks in the process that those situations can't be (and aren't) abused. I haven't, personally, seen a case in the IETF where I was concerned about anti-competitive practices, but I am not sure that our process _couldn't_ be used for anti-competitive purposes if someone was intent on doing so. I don't really think it is possible to write a policy that will close all opportunities for intentional abuse, though, and I don't think we should try. In other standards bodies I've been involved in, there have been more formal policies regarding anti-competive practices, as well as formal policies that have prevented a single individual, or a single company, from having too much say in the development of a particular standard. I don't feel that those standards bodies achieved more "fairness" or "openness" than we have in the IETF, though. I think that fairness and openness may be more a matter of culture than policy. > Could more information be provided about: > > (i) Whether the antitrust policy should be applicable for the U.S. and the E.U. And Asia? Perhaps our lawyer could also tell us whether it is only important that we cover the anti-competitive laws of places that we meet, or if we could be sued for this type of issue anywhere that our mailing lists are used? > (ii) Which insurance triggered the discussion about having an antitrust policy I understand that the IETF counsel (AKA our lawyer) has indicated that this sort of policy is needed. > (iii) Which body faces the risk of anti-competitive litigation Most likely ISOC and individuals who serve in leadership roles in the IETF, from what I understand. Margaret _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf