On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:24 PM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxx> 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 is much more practical than abstract rulemaking. > > +1 > > This has the admirable advantage of waiting until there is an actual > problem to address, rather than trying to guess what has not happened > in the past 30 years but might happen in the future. > > R's, > John > > I must admit that I don't understand that reasoning at all, assuming that this discussion is still about anti-Trust policy. Once there is an actual problem to address, it will be because we are enmeshed in a lawsuit, and it will be much too late to change our policies. Now, I realize that that does not prove that we have to change our policies (I regard that as the output of this exercise), but saying you want to wait until there is a problem to consider changes is IMO akin to saying you don't want to consider putting in fire extinguishers until there is a fire. Regards Marshall > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf