Subject: Antitrust FAQ

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:41:21 -0400

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 draft of a FAQ to fill this need has been developed.  Please review the FAQ, and if you discover any issues raise them in response to this message.

http://www.ietf.org/playground/antitrust-faq.html

Thanks,
  Russ

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:01:51 -0700

In its current form, the plain language:

> 6) In order to avoid antitrust issues, what topics should not be discussed at IETF meeting?
>
> IETF participants should avoid any of the topics listed in questions 2 and 3, above.

directs two people who are at an IETF meeting to refrain from one having 
a sales discussion with the other in private.

Since this sort of discussion is probably quite common and entirely 
acceptable, it would help to have the stricture defined in terms of more 
specifically unacceptable context.

The current language merely specifies presence at an IETF meeting as the 
sole criterion.   The FAQ is necessarily quite basic, but since it is 
cast in a manner that assumes no prior knowledge of the topic by the 
reader, it's important to be a bit more detailed in specifying the 
relevant conditions under which the problematic exchanges should not occur.

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Oct 2012 04:41:41 -0000

>a sales discussion with the other in private.

Um, could you identify which item under 2 or 3 would describe a
sales discussion?

R's,
John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:34:37 +0100

On 11/10/2012 05:01, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> 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 still violate anti-trust law afaik (ianal).

What is perhaps missing is a qualification like "except in private conversation
with fellow employees", in case that isn't obvious.

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:34:34 -0700

> Um, could you identify which item under 2 or 3 would describe a

     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."

By way of offering a single example, I'm only choosing the first bullet 
of #2.  Getting this sort of "price fixing" guarantee isn't actually all 
that unusual for critical sales contracts.

d/

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:47:28 -0700

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 so far from 
possible only the complexity and other issues - like government focusing 
on other issues like the economy but all of that is about to come to an end.
> Of course they did -  However, educational material is needed so that all IETF participants are aware of the the law.
More importantly declaring yourself innocent only works when you 
actually are... and that is far from the case here.
> The first draft of a FAQ to fill this need has been developed.  Please review the FAQ, and if you discover any issues raise them in response to this message.
Look its time for the IETF to admit several things - the first is that 
in its change from a trailing-edge to leading-edge GSO it needs formal 
IP controls in place because it is driving that envelope rather than 
working to create interoperable implementations from existing technologies.

In instances where IP is developed there are specific rights and 
responsibilities, especially for organizations with their own 
Transparency programs who are public entities.

Todd
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5822 - Release Date: 10/10/12
>
>
>

-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Oct 2012 08:53:23 -0400

>    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 how people who didn't understand the issues could misunderstand it.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:00:15 -0700

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 the request for more precision in specifying contextual constraints.

d/

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:09:57 -0700

> with fellow employees", in case that isn't obvious.
And that would mean "any act or communication in furtherance of an IETF 
initiative". The problem you have here is the definition of a conspiracy 
under US Law - the left hand doesnt have to be in direct communication 
with the right hand here to be a quantifiable conspiracy.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00923.htm

The fun part is that the obvious use of the US Copyright act to create a 
monopoly on the IETF IP brand is clearly the first step in documenting 
the "conspiracy" here. The issue then is one of disclosure to prevent 
antitrust - meaning everyone needs to fess up with regard to who's 
power-of-attorney as required by the BCPs they represent here before the 
IETF.

Todd  Glassey
> Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5823 - Release Date: 10/10/12
>
>

-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:20:32 -0700

> Hence the request for more precision in specifying contextual 
So the Sherman act in the US prevents any corporate entity from 
monopolizing the power of the US Government. Since the power of the IETF 
is tied to the ISOC and the ICANN/IANA operating practices which the 
IETF is the source of controls - the sole source of controls for... this 
is an issue. The NTIA MOU is the hanger so to speak...

Which means that the use of the IETF - an arguably Government Sponsored 
entity - since there are many Governments including the US with 
representatives in the IETF, this clearly becomes an antitrust issue 
with regard to the Sherman Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

Todd//

-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:39:39 -0700

> http://www.ietf.org/playground/antitrust-faq.html

Hi Russ,

The language in section 4 of the proposed FAQ seems to me a bit
convoluted, which may make it difficult to understand.  I've suggested
a potential re-write,  but I think the main feedback is that this
needs work.

Current text:

"4) Why is the IETF concerned with antitrust law?

The IETF work on standards so that implementations (whether
traditional products, or open-source) of those standards from
different sources interoperate well. That means that by our very
nature, we bring together people, some of whom are competitors in
industry, to communicate about work they do, and that increases the
possibility that some of those communications might run afoul of
antitrust law. Any claim that the IETF takes part in anticompetitive
practices could be detrimental to the IETF Standards Process and
ultimately the Internet. To that end, this document is to remind all
IETF participants of their responsibilities regarding antitrust law so
that they can avoid engaging in anticompetitive behavior in
conjunction with their IETF activities."

Proposed text:

"4) Why should IETF participants be aware of antitrust laws?

The IETF brings together individuals whose corporate sponsors may be
competitors in specific markets.  Participants' efforts are focused on
creating specifications that allow different implementations to
interoperate, which enables a robust, competitive environment.
Because potential competitors are gathered, though, there can be
concerns that some discussions held in IETF contexts may be
inappropriate.  Such claims would be damaging to individuals, their
sponsors, and to the IETF process.  The IETF reminds all IETF
participants of their responsibilities so that they can avoid
discussions which might be understood to be collusion or otherwise
anti-competitive."

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:11:20 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:

> By way of offering a single example, I'm only choosing the first bullet of #2.
> Getting this sort of "price fixing" guarantee isn't actually all that unusual
> for critical sales contracts.

What would be unusual would be to not have an escape clause that allowed 
the sales guy to offer a lower price to someone else if he also refunded
the different to the customer.

And it isn't an anti-trust violation ... an anti trust violation is where
two competators agree to maintain pricing and not compete, at least on
price.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:32:03 -0400

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.

I'd also expect to see:

7) What should be considered when evaluating the composition of design
teams to avoid antitrust concerns?

8) What responsibilities do chairs have in avoiding antitrust concerns
within their WGs.

9) What should chairs, editors or other participants do if they have
concerns about something they observe in the IETF process?

These are not hypothetical concerns.  In all three cases I've had the
question with regard to specific events and not been sure what to do.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:42:54 -0400

Thanks.  These are great responses, and I believe the FAQ would be
significantly improved by working these in.

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:00:11 -0500

Sam,

Here are some responses for your consideration.

Jorge

>The one most confusing is "agreements to restrict output"

This is when companies agree to reduce their production in order to
increase demand/prices.  For example, a group of ISPs get together at an
IETF meeting and agree that they will each only offer a limited quantity
of high-bandwitdh Internet access.

>from the standards process could help.

For example 3 old-line manufacturers get together and decide that they
don't want a particular up-and-coming competitor to be part of a WG
because they would prefer to stick with their current technology
architecture.

>teams to avoid antitrust concerns?

Technical expertise, balance of interests (per the discussion in the join
IEEE/IAB/IETF document that was recently released), and no dominance by
any particular company.

>8) What responsibilities do chairs have in avoiding antitrust concerns

Without a formal Antitrust policy, I don't think there are any official
responsibilities.  However, the prudent chair will try to dissuade
anticompetitive conduct in his/her WG, and will report suspected
anticompetitive activity to the IESG.

>concerns about something they observe in the IETF process?

See above

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:27:11 -0500

> IEEE/IAB/IETF document that was recently released), and no dominance by

Indeed, I'd expect chairs to follow the above advice even if it didn't 
affect antitrust concerns. In fact, I'd say following the rest of our 
process appropriately *requires* that you follow the above advice. 
That's why I think it's unnecessary to say this in the antitrust FAQ: If 
chairs don't know that they need to have appropriate representation of 
technical expertise and viewpoints on a design team, we need to fix that 
at a higher level.

> anticompetitive activity to the IESG.

Again, most anti-competitive behavior is also going to be a violation of 
other IETF procedures: In Jorge's example above, if folks from a group 
of old guard companies try to push the technology of an up-and-coming 
competitor out of a WG because they'd prefer to stick with their current 
technology and the chair allows the technology to be pushed out even 
though the new guy has some small amount of support and has answered all 
of the technical objections of the old fogies, that's not a proper 
consensus call. "There's 20 of us and only 2 of them" does not mean that 
there's rough consensus if the 2 have strong technical arguments for 
going in a different direction that go unanswered by the larger group.

One of the reasons that some of us wanted simply an FAQ and not a new 
antitrust policy is because sticking tightly to proper IETF procedures 
will almost always avoid a chair getting themselves into antitrust hot 
water.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:34:58 -0700

> will almost always avoid a chair getting themselves into antitrust hot

A statement of this sort in the FAQ, and an explanation for its basis, 
would be helpful.

d/

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 08:53:05 -0400

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.

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.

Would you be willing to consider the following questions?

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?

2) How messages like yours will affect chairs and others willingness to
bring concerns to you in your role of area director.

Thanks for your consideration,

--Sam

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:14:52 -0500

> 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.

> area director working for a large company--Cisco, Ericson, Qualcomm,

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.

> 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.

> 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

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 07:33:36 -0700

On 10/15/2012 7:14 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 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 
> 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 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.
>
> 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.
>
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

-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:22:45 +0100

...
> Sam, I'm actually quite surprised at your reaction. 

In fairness to both of you, I can see why Sam might have interpreted Pete's
message the way he did - I also thought Pete was being a bit flippant until
I read it a second time.

I think the point is that when drafting RFC 2026 (and later RFC 2418), those
involved (including Jorge's predecessor as pro bono counsel) were very much
aware of anti-trust rules, and it was certainly in their minds that following
the RFC 2026 process would largely avoid anti-trust issues, without the need
to say so explicitly. Indeed BCP 9 describes what we *should* do (focus on
technical aspects, ensure openness and fairness, disclose IPR) but not what
we shouldn't do. Anti-trust advice tends to describe what we shouldn't do.
That's what the FAQ adds.

    Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:57:33 -0400

--On Monday, October 15, 2012 09:14 -0500 Pete Resnick
<[email-masked]> 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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:23:39 -0400

Hi.

A separate conversation stirred up memories of the ones at ANSI
from long ago and suggests something else that should be added
to the list:

* A protocol specification that has the appearance of being
solely the product of a single vendor or other organization is
inherently dangerous and dangerous to the IETF, not just the
particants. Problems can arise if a standards body rubber-stamps
a one-organization specification, especially if that
organization gains an advantage from standardization of its
technology.  First-to-implement or other market dominance
factors may be as important in that regard as, e.g., licensing
restrictions.    WGs or others evaluating such a specification
should be extra-careful to make sure that it has broad support
from unaffiliated people  and that the support is documented for
the record in minutes, shepherd's reports, or through other
mechanisms.

Several of the terms above are wildly subjective, but this can
be an area in which, if one wishes to avoid trouble, the
appearance may be more important than hair-splitting about the
realities.

Just something to be considered.
best,
   john

---

From: "George Willingmyre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:42:52 -0400

Hello John ... it would help me better understand your proposal in an 
antitrust context  if you elaborated to what you are referring at ANSI.

Could it be the text about use of trademarks in standards in the 2008

ANSI Guidelines on Embedded Trademark 
http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20Standards/Procedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/ANSI%20Guidelines%20on%20Embedded%20Trademark.pdf

clip

The primary concern relating to the use of a mark in a standard is whether 
it would appear

as if the standard is endorsing one particular proprietary product or 
service over competing

ones.

B. General Guidance

As a general rule, standards should provide a description of features from 
which

competing and interoperable implementations can be developed. The appearance 
that a

standard endorses any particular products, services or companies should be 
avoided.

Therefore, proper names, trademarks, service marks or certification marks of 
specific

companies, products or services should not be included in the text of a 
standard or in an

appendix (or the equivalent) if it appears that they might cause this 
effect.

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF Chair" <[email-masked]>; "Jorge Contreras" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Antitrust FAQ

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:06:58 -0700

> the record in minutes, shepherd's reports, or through other

If a spec has broad support, it doesn't matter where it came from.  If a 
spec does not have broad support, it doesn't matter where it came from.

The essential concern is reviewing initial and continuing support.  It's 
an issue for many different possible IETF activities, not just those 
with an initial specification coming from a single source.

d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:05:53 -0400

--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 13:06 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> If a spec has broad support, it doesn't matter where it came
> from.  If a spec does not have broad support, it doesn't
> matter where it came from.
> 
> The essential concern is reviewing initial and continuing
> support.  It's an issue for many different possible IETF
> activities, not just those with an initial specification
> coming from a single source.

Dave,

As a fairly determined non-lawyer, I believe that careful
attention to IETF procedures and norms, including the principle
you identify above, is sufficient to keep us out of antitrust
problems and that this "FAQ" effort, like the "policy" effort
before it, is a waste of the community's time.

But perhaps I'm naive and there are things that are driving the
IESG (or the IAOC, but I presume you would know about that) to
want to do this.  _If_ it is worth doing (and, again, I have my
doubts) then it is probably worth noting the things that can set
off alarms.  I have some small reason to believe that a single
source specification that is not significantly altered by the WG
and that is largely pushed by the organization from which the
specification came can set off those alarms should someone later
claim to have been damaged by the spec.   That is quite
independent of your point and the observation that, to the best
of my knowledge, "reviewing initial and continuing support" is a
sufficient remedy for problems that might occur with a
single-source specification for which that level of review did
not occur.

   john

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:18:47 +0100

On 10/17/2012 08:23 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> technology.

I'm with Dave on this one. I don't believe we should
feel any need whatsoever to fiddle with, or to look like
we've fiddled with, something that's already good, nor
ought we offer guidance to that effect.

If I recall correctly, HMAC (rfc 2104) is a fine counterexample
to the need-to-fiddle claim. The Internet is better because
we adopted what looks like that one-vendor specification
and we shouldn't feel like that's a problem, when it just
isn't.

So I don't see a need for any such addition to the FAQ.

S.