Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules

["George Willingmyre" <gtw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

potential "vote packers"  in voluntary consensus standards processes take heed of 1988 Supreme Court affirmation of lower court award of $3.8 million in damages (before trebling)  antitrust liability of  Allied Tube & Conduit Corp when packing NFPA process

http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/Cases/AlliedTube.htm

Supreme Court  affirmed

In its complaint, plaintiff Indian Head, Inc. (Carlon) charged that defendant Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. had conspired to prevent inclusion of Carlon's product in industry standards. The jury found for Carlon, and awarded it $3.8 million in damages (before trebling).

Allied Tube v. Indian Head, Inc. - 486 U.S. 492 (1988)

Before the meeting was held, petitioner, the Nation's largest producer of steel conduit, members of the steel industry, other steel conduit manufacturers, and independent sales agents collectively agreed to exclude respondent's product from the 1981 Code by packing the annual meeting with new Association members whose only function was to vote against respondent's proposal.

 

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President, GTW Associates
Spencerville, MD USA 20868
301.421.4138
www.gtwassociates.com

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "SM" <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>

Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>

Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:46 AM

Subject: Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules

> Hi John,
> At 06:04 16-02-2012, John C Klensin 
wrote:
>>A current Last Call has apparently brought on another of 
the
>>"please tell all your friends to send in supportive notes, 
even
>>if they don't say much of anything substantive" campaigns 
that
>>we see from time to time.  When those notes come from 
people who
>>do not routinely participate on IETF lists, they provide 
very
>>little real information unless we have suddenly taken up 
voting
> 
> Letter-writing campaigns occur every now and then.  
As there isn't 
> any vote count, the effort can end up in a diluted 
form.
> 
>>individual and +1" does not.   Sadly, such 
endorsements,
>>especially from people who are not active IETF 
participants, add
>>to the noise and might prevent someone who was 
still genuinely
>>trying to understand the pros and cons (presumably 
including all
>>of the IESG) from seeing a new and substantive 
argument, no
>>matter how well-grounded.
> 
> Last year, 
someone discussed about how a "+1" could be read and some 
> people were 
offended.   Maybe authors should be given the choice to 
> have 
their proposal evaluated by counting the votes or to have the 
> 
evaluation which is based on substantive comments.  Nobody would be 
> offended then.
> 
> Regards,
> -sm 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing 
list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf