On 10/15/2012 7:14 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 10/15/12 7:53 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
message at any time earlier this year.
I'm disappointed because I'd like to work in an IETf climate where
antitrust and related concerns are taken seriously.
I need to believe that the IESG will take these issues seriously, will
give chairs and others the tools they need to do a good job and will
seriously consider concers that arise.
Sam, I'm actually quite surprised at your reaction. The intention of
my message (which obviously did not get across) was to say that I *do*
take antitrust issues seriously, and to allay your concerns about the
last two issues (the ones you labeled 7 and 8) because I think they
are covered in other parts of our procedures having nothing to do with
antitrust. I thought Jorge's answers were spot on, and followed up by
saying, "If you stick to other IETF procedures, you should have smooth
sailing." I'm at a loss for why you think this means I don't take
these issues seriously, and if what I said seemed dismissive of your
needs as a chair, please know that I'm intent on getting you the tools
and support you need. I feel terrible that you aren't getting that
support now, and I publicly commit to changing that. However, I do
need to understand what I dismissed and what needs to change.
I can recall a number of instances when I've raised concerns about not
having the appropriate tools or clarity of process in this regard. I can
also recall two instances where I've raised specific concerns about
anti-competitive practices.
In all these instances, including this one, I received pushback from an
area director working for a large company--Cisco, Ericson, Qualcomm,
etc.
I hope that you did not get pushback from me prior to this (I'm the
only Qualcomm AD at the moment), and if you did, I hope you'll tell me
when that happened. That said, I do find it interesting that the
pushback you've received is from people in large companies. I can tell
you from my experience that one person I've talked to in Qualcomm
legal about this topic would *prefer* the IETF to have not just a more
elaborate FAQ, but an explicit antitrust policy, and I have pushed
back against that. I can't speak for others, but I know that my
position on this topic is probably one of the least affected by my
company affiliation.
In any event, I want to hear more about concerns you've raised where
you haven't gotten the tools or clarity of process you need, and I
want to make sure that gets fixed.
Would you be willing to consider the following questions?
Of course.
1) What harm is done by writing down common information in a FAQ where
chairs will be able to find it when trying to confirm they are doing the
right thing or double check what they should be considering?
Writing down helpful information is not at all a problem, and I do
like Dave Crocker's suggestion to add the bits about, "Sticking to
these other IETF procedures will keep you out of antitrust problems."
My concern (along with many other folks) only kicks in when the
collection of this information starts to look like a formal antitrust
*policy*. I'm afraid that having an antitrust policy starts to lead us
down the path of the IETF becoming a corporate-membership organization
instead of a collection of individuals who do not represent particular
companies. To date, we have little formal recognition of companies as
participants in the IETF, and I for one would like to keep it that
way. The real concerns that drive the desire for a formal antitrust
policy are about corporations behaving in improper (and illegal) ways,
not individuals. (There are ways for individuals to get themselves in
antitrust trouble, but that's not the main motivation for having such
a policy.) The closer we get to having such a policy, the closer we
get to saying that we are going to make the concerns of corporations
an important part of how we make decisions in the IETF. I think that
would be a disaster.
If you see me pushing back against things in the antitrust FAQ, it's
because of the above concerns. I'm not trying to dismiss the needs of
folks like yourself in IETF leadership.
I am - I am saying the current models are useless, they get us to the
point where NEA was being brought up before the IESG itself and we find
one of the primary party's behind the process has an IPR disclosure.
As to Antitrust - well - it doesnt really matter what the IETF wants to
claim is the law internally to the IETF - it simply is not a legal court
system and has no authority other than ...
Todd
2) How messages like yours will affect chairs and others willingness to
bring concerns to you in your role of area director.
This one I'm not even sure how to start answering. As I said above, my
intention in my message was to point out process and procedure you
already have at your disposal to deal with antitrust issues. If I
sounded like I didn't take your concerns seriously or was unwilling to
hear concerns from chairs in the future, I will do everything I can to
fix that. (And if other chairs felt the same way that Sam did but did
not want to talk about it publicly, please drop me a private note; I
need to make good on this.)
Thanks for your consideration,
You are absolutely welcome, and if this message does not fully address
your concerns, please follow up. I'm also happy to talk, either by
phone/VoIP or in a few weeks in Atlanta, with you or any chair who is
not getting the support you need.
pr
--
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.