fwiw - the last time I looked at this law 1/ the IETF did not qualify as a SDO under the law 2/ the law only protected employees of the SDO, not participants
Scott On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Richard Shockey wrote: > +1 > > It would be helpful in the non normative statement to the community to cite > what suits were are involved, what was the cause of action and what if any > decisions were rendered in these cases. > > US antitrust law, for instance has specific exemptions for SDO’s. > > http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_108-237/Title_I > > There are some requirements under this act that SDO’s need to file a > statement of purpose. I don’t know if we ever did that. > > In general, however this sounds like a sound and valuable move. > > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted > Hardie > Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:27 PM > To: IETF Chair > Cc: IETF; IESG > Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, IETF Chair <ch...@ietf.org> wrote: > Sorry, can you expand on the threat model here? Are we developing one in > order to defend against some specific worry about our not having one? > Because it has become best practice in other SDOs? Because the insurance > agent wishes to see something in particular? > > I hesitate to develop something that we have not needed in the past unless it > is clear what benefit it gives us. In particular, if we develop one without > some particular characteristic, do we lose the benefits of being where we are > now? > > Recent suits against other SDOs is the source of the concern. The idea is t > make it clear which topics are off limits at IETF meetings and on IETF mail > lists. In this way, if such discussions take place, the good name of the > IETF can be kept clean. > > Russ > > Hmm, I would characterize our previous policy as a quite public statement > that no one is excluded from IETF discussion and decision making, along with > with reminders that what we are deciding is the technical standard, not the > resulting marketplace. What we can say beyond that without diving into > national specifics is obscure to me. > > I agree with Dave that the first work product of an attorney should be a > non-normative explanation to the community of how having such a policy helps > and what it must say in order to get that benefit. > > (I have to say that my personal experience is that prophylactic measures > against law suits tend to change the terms of the suits but not their > existence. In this case, suing someone because they did not enforce the > policy or the policy did not cover some specific jurisdiction's requirements > perfectly, seems like the next step. Your mileage may vary.) > > regards, > > Ted > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf