--On Monday, October 15, 2012 09:14 -0500 Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. FWIW, I share these concerns (and said so during an earlier round of discussions of antitrust policy). We've spent a huge amount of effort trying to ensure that IETF participation is by individuals rather than on the basis of organizational memberships or affiliations; it would be very unfortunate to back into something that would undermine that rather basic policy. IANAL, much less one with the right specialized expertise to advise on whether we could have an effective antitrust policy without having to move to "membership" with associated agreements and identified affiliations, but I've been told it is hard or impossible. As Pete says, advice about what one should not do -- enhanced by a reminder that following normal IETF procedures and requirements for openness and conssnsus will avoid most or all accidental problems -- is another thing and is probably useful and certainly harmless. Two suggestions about the document (I am _not_ suggesting wording): First, based on discussions at ANSI _many_ years ago, the current point 6 says "...should not be discussed at IETF meeting?". Ignoring the small grammatical problem, the issue is not limited to IETF meetings. Anything that should not be discussed at a meeting should not be discussed on a mailing list, conference call, or context that might, for other reasons, be subject to BCP 78 or 79. Put differently, such discussions should not occur in any IETF context. They should probably also not occur in any context that might have the effect of influencing IETF decisions or actions without the advice of counsel. Second, as I understand things, it might be useful to enhance point 4 to note that good practices wrt antitrust issues protects participants and whomever might be supporting their work as much or more than it protects the IETF. best, john