Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-11 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 11/10/2012 05:01, Dave Crocker wrote: ... > The current language merely specifies presence at an IETF meeting as the > sole criterion. It's behaviour at an IETF meeting that we are concerned about. Whether it occurs in a session, in a corridor, in a private room, or electronically, it would

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-11 Thread Dave Crocker
On 10/10/2012 9:41 PM, John Levine wrote: directs two people who are at an IETF meeting to refrain from one having a sales discussion with the other in private. Um, could you identify which item under 2 or 3 would describe a sales discussion? Saleguy: "Buy my product. I'll sell it to

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-11 Thread tglassey
On 10/10/2012 8:41 PM, IETF Chair wrote: The IETF does not have a formal antitrust policy. In fact, the ANTITRUST BOF concluded that a formal policy was not needed. Of course they did - the IETF and its membership seems to want autonomy and judicial immunity for its actions here... something s

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-11 Thread John R Levine
Saleguy: "Buy my product. I'll sell it to you for US$xxx." Potential customer: "OK, but only if you guarantee me that that's your best price to any customer for the next 6 moths." Salesguy: "OK." It's only price fixing if it's a discussion between vendors, but I suppose I see ho

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-11 Thread Dave Crocker
On 10/11/2012 5:53 AM, John R Levine wrote: It's only price fixing if it's a discussion between vendors, but I suppose I see how people who didn't understand the issues could misunderstand it. Exactly. And this FAQ is, presumably, for people who do not already understand the issues. Hence

Re: New mailing list for DNS-SD/mDNS Extensions

2012-10-11 Thread Bob Hinden
Stuart, Looks very interesting. I will try to attend the BOF. Bob On Oct 10, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote: > A new IETF mailing list has been created for discussions regarding > DNS-SD/mDNS Extensions: > > > > This is in response to

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-11 Thread tglassey
On 10/11/2012 12:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 11/10/2012 05:01, Dave Crocker wrote: ... The current language merely specifies presence at an IETF meeting as the sole criterion. It's behaviour at an IETF meeting that we are concerned about. Whether it occurs in a session, in a corridor, in

Re: Antitrust FAQ - Sherman Act

2012-10-11 Thread tglassey
On 10/11/2012 6:00 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 10/11/2012 5:53 AM, John R Levine wrote: It's only price fixing if it's a discussion between vendors, but I suppose I see how people who didn't understand the issues could misunderstand it. Exactly. And this FAQ is, presumably, for people who do

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-11 Thread Ted Hardie
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:41 PM, IETF Chair wrote: > The IETF does not have a formal antitrust policy. In fact, the ANTITRUST BOF > concluded that a formal policy was not needed. However, educational material > is needed so that all IETF participants are aware of the the law. The first > dra

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-11 Thread David Morris
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 10/10/2012 9:41 PM, John Levine wrote: > > > directs two people who are at an IETF meeting to refrain from one having > > > a sales discussion with the other in private. > > > > Um, could you identify which item under 2 or 3 would describe a > >

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-11 Thread Sam Hartman
Hi, Russ. In question 2, I don't understand what several terms are and whether they have any relation to the standards process. The one most confusing is "agreements to restrict output" Also, more detail on what an anticompetitive reason to restrict someone from the standards process could help.

Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

2012-10-11 Thread Thomas Narten
Total of 52 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Oct 12 00:53:02 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 9.62% |5 | 8.32% |35545 | tglas...@earthlink.net 5.77% |3 | 8.83% |37719 | jasn...@gma