IETF
antitrust@jabber.ietf.org
Tuesday, 27 March 2012< ^ >
Room Configuration

GMT+0
[07:05:35] SM joins the room
[07:09:32] Klensin joins the room
[07:11:59] sftcd joins the room
[07:24:59] Jim Galvin joins the room
[07:28:49] amorris joins the room
[07:32:05] resnick joins the room
[07:33:11] <resnick> I am in the room and can relay to mic if needed
[07:33:20] <resnick> Marshall is looking into Webex
[07:33:26] <SM> Thanks Pete
[07:33:43] <resnick> Are you all getting audio from the normal feed?
[07:33:54] <SM> Yes, it is working perfectly
[07:33:58] <resnick> ack
[07:34:06] <Klensin> Yes, no problme with audio. And thanks.
[07:34:57] hta joins the room
[07:36:15] wseltzer joins the room
[07:36:37] john.levine joins the room
[07:43:20] <SM> Virginia :-)
[07:45:30] <Klensin> Those of us who are remote would like to know how many lawyers there are in the room... and even who they are.
[07:45:49] <john.levine> I see Jorge and Wendy Seltzer
[07:45:54] <resnick> They are not easily identifiable.
[07:46:05] <Klensin> sigh
[07:46:38] <wseltzer> I don't know who else here is a lawyer
[07:48:18] <Klensin> Scott is certainly putting himself far out on the "amateur lawyer" spectrum.
[07:51:36] <resnick> Juris Doctor Amator
[07:55:54] <Klensin> Mic: Jorge, could you say a few words about the likey interactions between antitrust law and the IETF's notion that everyone is participating as an individual, e.g., whether an individual's actions can cause problems for a sponsoring company (or vice versa) and the IETF.
[07:57:01] <resnick> Chairs have you in queue.
[07:57:11] <Klensin> thx
[07:58:16] marshall joins the room
[07:58:22] <marshall> Hello
[07:58:49] <hta> Stephan Wenger is certainly far out on the amateur lawyer spectrum, but his CV shows no legal education.....
[07:59:03] dcrocker joins the room
[07:59:06] <resnick> Marshall, do you have John's comment in the buffer, or shall I copy/paste it?
[07:59:06] <marshall> Can whoever had a question / comment for the mike please repeat it for me
[07:59:19] <resnick> John Klensin
Mic:  Jorge, could you say a few words about the likey interactions between antitrust law and the IETF's notion that everyone is participating as an individual, e.g., whether an individual's actions can cause problems for a sponsoring company (or vice versa) and the IETF.
[07:59:25] <marshall> actually, Stephan does have some German legal training
[08:00:55] <marshall> focused on patent law
[08:01:25] <hta> None shown on http://www.stewe.org/cv-business-wenger.pdf
[08:04:45] <Klensin> Mic: I think Jorge answered the question, but the main point is that, if we start writing antitrust policies, they will have to bring us at least as close to company participation/ liability (and maybe closer) than our IPR policies do.
[08:06:47] <marshall> But, the real question is, is that liability already there, even if we don't chose to recognize it ?
[08:07:20] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[08:09:25] <Klensin> Yes, Marshall, but that is a pretty strong argument for my interpretation of Scott's suggestion: we should be certain that we don't have documents/interpretation floating around that causes problems, but otherwise do nothing. And we should especially avoid making new process.
[08:09:49] <marshall> ack
[08:10:10] <marshall> if you (or anyone) want me to say something at the mike, please specifically say that
[08:10:46] <Klensin> I'm prefixing things I want taken to the mic with "Mic:"
[08:10:52] <marshall> ack
[08:14:56] <Klensin> Mic: But, as IETF's lawyer, Jorge could sensibly give us advice as to whether we would be better off from an antitrust standpoing if our current policies (ot future ones) were tuned to be more company-sensitive.
[08:15:38] <Klensin> Marshall, I recognized your voice, Jorge's and Scott's, but would really appreciate it if people identified themselves at the mic
[08:15:45] <marshall> sorry
[08:15:53] <marshall> I always try to
[08:16:05] <marshall> the current speaker did, but i didn't catch it
[08:16:16] <Klensin> I know and appreciate it, but have no idea who is speaking.
[08:16:40] <wseltzer> can't see a name-tag either, sorry
[08:16:46] <marshall> I'll ask
[08:17:04] <SM> Someone from Orange
[08:17:59] <marshall> I tried
[08:18:01] <marshall> :)
[08:20:27] <Klensin> General problem, not to worry about the specific one... although, if one is going to put energy into worrying about antitrust issues, one of the things we better get much better about (based on advice from ANSI lawyers some years ago) is that we can identify the source (individual and company) or any comment or recommendation that might later turn out to have influenced policy or decisions in a way that is adverse to someone. (your discretion as to whether this is worth mic time or not)
[08:23:03] <marshall> current speaker is a lawyer from Microsoft
[08:23:22] <Klensin> thx
[08:28:29] Ted Hardie joins the room
[08:29:29] <Klensin> Mic: especially given the topic of discussion, I' feeling anxious about anonymous people in anonymous roles for anonymous companies in the room and especially participating in and influencing the discussion
[08:29:42] <Andrew Sullivan> I didn't hear much of an answer to Pete's question. Did I miss it? Because to me it is one of the fundamental questions
[08:30:10] <resnick> I believe Jorge said, "No, not an increase in liability."
[08:30:18] <Andrew Sullivan> Just "they already have that responsibility" but that didn't answer whether I, as WG chair, am protected by (say) insurance
[08:30:30] <Andrew Sullivan> in case I overlook something
[08:30:43] <Andrew Sullivan> that I ought to have known once I had available to me materials
[08:31:00] <resnick> John, I don't think anyone has been at the mic who didn't identify themselves and their company. Did I miss someone?
[08:31:14] <Andrew Sullivan> I haven't identified my company
[08:31:26] <wseltzer> lawyers aren't getting much of a good rap this session
[08:31:37] <marshall> I will find out (wearing an IAOC hat) what our insurance says about AT liabiity
[08:31:39] <wseltzer> (not that it's undeserved, as a general matter)
[08:31:59] <SM> Marshall, thanks, could you make the material available publicly?
[08:32:15] <Andrew Sullivan> @wseltzer: I regret every day that I didn't go to law school, FWIW.
[08:32:20] <Andrew Sullivan> And yes, thanks, Marshall
[08:33:50] <marshall> sure, I'll put what I find on the mail list
[08:34:48] <Klensin> Could you get her to speak up a bit (or get closer to the mic)?
[08:36:04] Ted Hardie leaves the room
[08:38:30] <marshall> sorry, I didn't see the request until too late
[08:40:26] <Andrew Sullivan> Was Jorge's point a moment ago that, because other SDOs did this, we oughta think about it?
[08:40:51] <Andrew Sullivan> Or was it the empirical fact that others' actions were simply the occasion that prompted a conversation?
[08:41:05] <marshall> no, I think it was more like, the other SDOs did this, and that's when we started to think (again) about it
[08:41:11] <Andrew Sullivan> ok, good
[08:43:12] amorris leaves the room
[08:45:49] <Klensin> Vote: careful review of existing policies and procedures, education about issues and sensitivity to importance of things like participant identification, otherwise no specific policy
[08:45:55] <marshall> 1New Explicit Text Needed
1.a Policy - consensus needed
1.b Educational - no consensus needed
2.Current BCPs Sufficient, Need Pointers
3.Make no statement
[08:51:28] <hta> if everyone left the room when we were not on technical topics, this room would be empty for sure.
[08:51:59] <Klensin> Mic: Pete, I agree about the WG Chair's core responsibility. But I believe that the Chair also has responsibility for, e.g., identification of people who are contributing to decisions ... and failure to do that probably does have antitrust implications as well as IPR and general IETF policy ones.
[08:52:00] <Andrew Sullivan> I'm not willing to get up to the mic for this, but Pete's sketch here sounded like a bright line was being drawn when of course that can't happen
[08:52:34] <Andrew Sullivan> but it's obviously legit for someone to stand at the mic and say, "This protocol is stupid because it costs too much to do this."
[08:53:00] <dcrocker> I thought Pete's point was exactly the right brightline concept that can reasonably tolerate a fuzzy-line implementation, given that we must not try to be lawyers.
[08:53:37] <Klensin> @Dave: +1
[08:53:59] <Andrew Sullivan> right. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: I don't think pr was in fact _saying_ the line is so bright. I just wanted to point out that it likely isn't, and we need to keep that in mind even if we're going to talk as though there is such a line
[08:54:27] <dcrocker> AS: +1
[08:55:01] <Andrew Sullivan> I vB at the mic right now is touching on this too
[08:55:41] <resnick> jck: i'm mic'ing you.
[08:56:22] <Andrew Sullivan> I don't find it that hard to tell people at the mic line that they have to take their conversation elsewhere
[08:56:33] <Andrew Sullivan> I find that happens approximately once per WG session :)
[08:56:48] <dcrocker> Some of us are more self-actualized than others of us.
[08:56:57] <Andrew Sullivan> (or more accurately, every WG session has at least once instance.)
[08:57:07] john.levine leaves the room
[08:57:19] <dcrocker> WG chair training varies on how well it helps less self-a folk be more assertive about controlling the room.
[08:57:32] <Andrew Sullivan> true, that
[08:59:49] hta leaves the room
[09:00:09] Jim Galvin leaves the room
[09:00:10] john.levine joins the room
[09:00:10] resnick leaves the room
[09:00:35] Klensin leaves the room
[09:00:44] SM leaves the room
[09:01:04] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[09:01:49] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[09:01:50] <marshall> thank you all
[09:02:11] <marshall> the result was more support for 1b and 2, less for 1a and 3
[09:03:10] marshall leaves the room
[09:05:40] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[09:06:00] john.levine leaves the room
[09:08:34] dcrocker leaves the room
[09:12:04] wseltzer leaves the room
[09:28:05] sftcd leaves the room
[09:47:08] hta joins the room
[09:47:08] hta leaves the room
[09:47:08] hta joins the room
[09:47:16] sftcd joins the room
[09:47:21] sftcd leaves the room
[09:49:41] hta leaves the room
[09:49:46] hta joins the room
[09:50:06] hta leaves the room
[09:50:45] wseltzer joins the room
[09:51:08] hta joins the room
[09:56:11] hta leaves the room
[09:57:35] wseltzer leaves the room
[10:56:23] dcrocker joins the room
[10:56:23] dcrocker leaves the room