On 2011-12-03 06:12, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> 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.
+1. We should ask a specific concrete question to a litigator who
understands antitrust law: are there any significant gaps in the IETF
process rules, including the formal Note Well warning given to all
participants, that expose us (the IETF "officers", the IETF Trust,
the ISOC) to civil or criminal action in any jurisdiction?
If the answer is "no" we're done. If "yes", we'll know what to do.
We amateur lawyers should shut up until we hear back from a professional.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf