From nobody Tue Feb 15 18:06:28 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4EA3A12D9 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:06:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rEoPUusJYqqv for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:06:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfx.ietf.org (ietfx.amsl.com [4.31.198.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB6053A12DA for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfx.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B9E4049ADB for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:06:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from ietfx.ietf.org ([4.31.198.45]) by localhost (ietfx.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t-pYbBEuhZoO for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [158.140.230.105]) by ietfx.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02F164050FDE for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:06:17 -0800 (PST) From: Jay Daley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.40.0.1.81\)) Message-Id: <222BC751-9AEA-42C4-901A-DCF0604E6B22@ietf.org> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:06:10 +1300 To: antitrust-policy@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.40.0.1.81) Archived-At: Subject: [antitrust-policy] Update on legal advice re: antitrust X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 02:06:26 -0000 Hi All As per the call from the gendispatch chairs [1] I=E2=80=99m moving the = substantive discussion on antitrust to this list and in particular I=E2=80= =99m picking up on the issue of legal advice. The reason I=E2=80=99m = sending this and not our lead lawyer Brad Biddle is because he=E2=80=99s = on a long planned sabbatical. Brad had previously sent a lengthy message to gendispatch outlining his = opinion [2], which is that our current processes and procedures, as set = out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3], are strong = mitigation against antitrust risks though we could strengthen those = further. =46rom Brad=E2=80=99s email:=20 "I recommend that that we develop an explicit statement that = addresses antitrust compliance, and that we reference that statement in = the Note Well text that is routinely shown to participants. The = substance of our explicit statement can be straightforward, essentially = just highlighting how our existing processes and procedures are designed = to mitigate antitrust risks and setting our expectation that all = participants will abide by applicable antitrust laws" Following that we received private feedback from other lawyers that, = from the perspective of antitrust litigators, our current processes and = procedures would not provide strong mitigation of antitrust risk and = that could only be achieved with a detailed compliance policy. As Brad = is not a litigator, he and I agreed that we would get advice from = specialist antitrust litigators, which we have now done and what follows = is a summary of their advice: 1. We started with their assessment of the current position as set out = in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3]. The advice was that = this position is very strong for exactly the reasons set out in the LLC = Statement, that our structure and processes, as set out in the third = paragraph, manage the antitrust risk well. =20 2. It was their view that a compliance policy would make no difference = in a civil case, which is by far the most likely litigation risk. In a = criminal case, which they assessed as very low risk for us, it would be = a nice to have but unlikely to make much of a difference. They noted = that the set of structure and processes pointed to in the LLC Statement = are pretty much an antitrust policy in themselves. As you can see, this advice is clear and aligns closely with Brad=E2=80=99= s opinion. In particular that the substantive text of any antitrust = policy would be setting out how our processes and procedures mitigate = antitrust risk as per the LLC Statement. We further asked about two specific risks that had been raised in = private feedback: 3. On the specific issue of abuse of a dominant position they advised = that there is a very low risk that we would be liable for people abusing = our systems, structures and processes for this, in the same way that a = hotel is not liable if people use one of its meeting rooms to plan a = crime. They advised that nothing needs to be done to address this risk. 4. On the specific issue of WG chairs abusing their positions they = advised that the current process, particularly the strong appeals = process, was sufficient to mitigate the risk. When asked if the dearth = of upheld appeals called that appeals process into question, they = advised that it did the opposite as it demonstrated the robustness of = our processes before the appeals stage. They suggested that we could = consider specific training for WG chairs and could consider asking WG = chairs to sign some form of declaration if we wanted to mitigate = further. (The last point of asking WG chairs to sign something is a big change in = the way the IETF works and not something we need to explore further.) Based on this advice, my plan is to work with my co-authors (which may = require waiting for Brad to return in two months time) on a version of = the draft that more closely fits with the clear advice above. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jay=20 [1] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/x49eleWF0ehs9_virkxJRf3t= 3Bw/ [2] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/tQxkkDKiiswLUlG7kzqIgzmM= mrQ/ [3] = https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues/ --=20 Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-director@ietf.org From nobody Wed Feb 16 09:54:10 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8043A0E78; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:54:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8GgCXEJ0aMoB; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:54:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E591F3A1468; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:54:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0703123DC1; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (pfs.iad.rg.net [198.180.150.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F4BA123D63; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:54:01 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\)) From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <222BC751-9AEA-42C4-901A-DCF0604E6B22@ietf.org> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:54:01 -0500 Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <44BE072B-4492-4ACC-99B8-66D64FC8EA0F@vigilsec.com> References: <222BC751-9AEA-42C4-901A-DCF0604E6B22@ietf.org> To: Jay Daley X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Update on legal advice re: antitrust X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:54:08 -0000 Jay: This advice contradicts the results of the anti-trust BoF that was held = many years ago. The minutes are here: = https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-antitrust.txt The IETF lawyer at the time strongly encouraged a written policy, but = the community conclusion was that educational material was sufficient, = but that BCPs were not needed. I do not think a change to this conclusion should be made without = another BoF on the topic. Russ > On Feb 15, 2022, at 9:06 PM, Jay Daley wrote: >=20 > Hi All >=20 > As per the call from the gendispatch chairs [1] I=E2=80=99m moving the = substantive discussion on antitrust to this list and in particular I=E2=80= =99m picking up on the issue of legal advice. The reason I=E2=80=99m = sending this and not our lead lawyer Brad Biddle is because he=E2=80=99s = on a long planned sabbatical. >=20 > Brad had previously sent a lengthy message to gendispatch outlining = his opinion [2], which is that our current processes and procedures, as = set out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3], are strong = mitigation against antitrust risks though we could strengthen those = further. =46rom Brad=E2=80=99s email:=20 >=20 > "I recommend that that we develop an explicit statement that = addresses antitrust compliance, and that we reference that statement in = the Note Well text that is routinely shown to participants. The = substance of our explicit statement can be straightforward, essentially = just highlighting how our existing processes and procedures are designed = to mitigate antitrust risks and setting our expectation that all = participants will abide by applicable antitrust laws" >=20 > Following that we received private feedback from other lawyers that, = from the perspective of antitrust litigators, our current processes and = procedures would not provide strong mitigation of antitrust risk and = that could only be achieved with a detailed compliance policy. As Brad = is not a litigator, he and I agreed that we would get advice from = specialist antitrust litigators, which we have now done and what follows = is a summary of their advice: >=20 > 1. We started with their assessment of the current position as set = out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3]. The advice was = that this position is very strong for exactly the reasons set out in the = LLC Statement, that our structure and processes, as set out in the third = paragraph, manage the antitrust risk well. =20 >=20 > 2. It was their view that a compliance policy would make no = difference in a civil case, which is by far the most likely litigation = risk. In a criminal case, which they assessed as very low risk for us, = it would be a nice to have but unlikely to make much of a difference. = They noted that the set of structure and processes pointed to in the LLC = Statement are pretty much an antitrust policy in themselves. >=20 > As you can see, this advice is clear and aligns closely with Brad=E2=80=99= s opinion. In particular that the substantive text of any antitrust = policy would be setting out how our processes and procedures mitigate = antitrust risk as per the LLC Statement. >=20 > We further asked about two specific risks that had been raised in = private feedback: >=20 > 3. On the specific issue of abuse of a dominant position they advised = that there is a very low risk that we would be liable for people abusing = our systems, structures and processes for this, in the same way that a = hotel is not liable if people use one of its meeting rooms to plan a = crime. They advised that nothing needs to be done to address this risk. >=20 > 4. On the specific issue of WG chairs abusing their positions they = advised that the current process, particularly the strong appeals = process, was sufficient to mitigate the risk. When asked if the dearth = of upheld appeals called that appeals process into question, they = advised that it did the opposite as it demonstrated the robustness of = our processes before the appeals stage. They suggested that we could = consider specific training for WG chairs and could consider asking WG = chairs to sign some form of declaration if we wanted to mitigate = further. >=20 > (The last point of asking WG chairs to sign something is a big change = in the way the IETF works and not something we need to explore further.) >=20 > Based on this advice, my plan is to work with my co-authors (which may = require waiting for Brad to return in two months time) on a version of = the draft that more closely fits with the clear advice above. >=20 > Please let me know if you have any questions. >=20 > Jay=20 >=20 >=20 > [1] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/x49eleWF0ehs9_virkxJRf3t= 3Bw/ > [2] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/tQxkkDKiiswLUlG7kzqIgzmM= mrQ/ > [3] = https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues/ >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Jay Daley > IETF Executive Director > exec-director@ietf.org From nobody Wed Feb 16 10:13:56 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08FB3A0ED7 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:13:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SvBD8ZMnoxZN for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfx.ietf.org (ietfx.amsl.com [4.31.198.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C39C3A0ECE for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfx.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38B74049ADB; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:13:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from ietfx.ietf.org ([4.31.198.45]) by localhost (ietfx.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NzU5QnMcn2CS; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:13:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [158.140.230.105]) by ietfx.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA2804050FDE; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:13:49 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Jay Daley Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:13:46 +1300 Message-Id: <52C246C8-9A35-48EA-B2A8-4602210EA59B@ietf.org> References: <44BE072B-4492-4ACC-99B8-66D64FC8EA0F@vigilsec.com> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <44BE072B-4492-4ACC-99B8-66D64FC8EA0F@vigilsec.com> To: Russ Housley X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19C63) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Update on legal advice re: antitrust X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:13:55 -0000 Russ > On 17/02/2022, at 6:54 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFJay: >=20 > This advice contradicts the results of the anti-trust BoF that was held ma= ny years ago. The minutes are here: >=20 > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-antitrust.txt >=20 > The IETF lawyer at the time strongly encouraged a written policy, but the c= ommunity conclusion was that educational material was sufficient, but that B= CPs were not needed. >=20 > I do not think a change to this conclusion should be made without another B= oF on the topic. To be clear, this advice is not recommending a BCP. It is recommending a doc= ument that explains how are existing processes and procedures are strong mit= igation against antitrust risks, which is then included in the Note Well to e= nsure that this subject is highlighted. That sounds entirely informational t= o me.=20 Jay --=20 Jay Daley=20 IETF Executive Director exec-director@ietf.org >=20 > Russ >=20 >=20 >> On Feb 15, 2022, at 9:06 PM, Jay Daley wrote: >>=20 >> Hi All >>=20 >> As per the call from the gendispatch chairs [1] I=E2=80=99m moving the su= bstantive discussion on antitrust to this list and in particular I=E2=80=99m= picking up on the issue of legal advice. The reason I=E2=80=99m sending th= is and not our lead lawyer Brad Biddle is because he=E2=80=99s on a long pla= nned sabbatical. >>=20 >> Brad had previously sent a lengthy message to gendispatch outlining his o= pinion [2], which is that our current processes and procedures, as set out i= n the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3], are strong mitigation aga= inst antitrust risks though we could strengthen those further. =46rom Brad=E2= =80=99s email:=20 >>=20 >> "I recommend that that we develop an explicit statement that addresses= antitrust compliance, and that we reference that statement in the Note Well= text that is routinely shown to participants. The substance of our explici= t statement can be straightforward, essentially just highlighting how our ex= isting processes and procedures are designed to mitigate antitrust risks and= setting our expectation that all participants will abide by applicable anti= trust laws" >>=20 >> Following that we received private feedback from other lawyers that, from= the perspective of antitrust litigators, our current processes and procedur= es would not provide strong mitigation of antitrust risk and that could only= be achieved with a detailed compliance policy. As Brad is not a litigator,= he and I agreed that we would get advice from specialist antitrust litigato= rs, which we have now done and what follows is a summary of their advice: >>=20 >> 1. We started with their assessment of the current position as set out i= n the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3]. The advice was that this= position is very strong for exactly the reasons set out in the LLC Statemen= t, that our structure and processes, as set out in the third paragraph, mana= ge the antitrust risk well. =20 >>=20 >> 2. It was their view that a compliance policy would make no difference i= n a civil case, which is by far the most likely litigation risk. In a crimi= nal case, which they assessed as very low risk for us, it would be a nice to= have but unlikely to make much of a difference. They noted that the set of s= tructure and processes pointed to in the LLC Statement are pretty much an an= titrust policy in themselves. >>=20 >> As you can see, this advice is clear and aligns closely with Brad=E2=80=99= s opinion. In particular that the substantive text of any antitrust policy w= ould be setting out how our processes and procedures mitigate antitrust risk= as per the LLC Statement. >>=20 >> We further asked about two specific risks that had been raised in private= feedback: >>=20 >> 3. On the specific issue of abuse of a dominant position they advised th= at there is a very low risk that we would be liable for people abusing our s= ystems, structures and processes for this, in the same way that a hotel is n= ot liable if people use one of its meeting rooms to plan a crime. They advi= sed that nothing needs to be done to address this risk. >>=20 >> 4. On the specific issue of WG chairs abusing their positions they advis= ed that the current process, particularly the strong appeals process, was su= fficient to mitigate the risk. When asked if the dearth of upheld appeals c= alled that appeals process into question, they advised that it did the oppos= ite as it demonstrated the robustness of our processes before the appeals st= age. They suggested that we could consider specific training for WG chairs a= nd could consider asking WG chairs to sign some form of declaration if we wa= nted to mitigate further. >>=20 >> (The last point of asking WG chairs to sign something is a big change in t= he way the IETF works and not something we need to explore further.) >>=20 >> Based on this advice, my plan is to work with my co-authors (which may re= quire waiting for Brad to return in two months time) on a version of the dra= ft that more closely fits with the clear advice above. >>=20 >> Please let me know if you have any questions. >>=20 >> Jay=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/x49eleWF0ehs9_virk= xJRf3t3Bw/ >> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/tQxkkDKiiswLUlG7kz= qIgzmMmrQ/ >> [3] https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues/= >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> Jay Daley >> IETF Executive Director >> exec-director@ietf.org >=20 > _______________________________________________ > antitrust-policy mailing list > antitrust-policy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy From nobody Wed Feb 16 10:41:34 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6C03A14E6 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:41:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yetjqhWu27hH for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfx.ietf.org (ietfx.amsl.com [4.31.198.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F1B53A14E8 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfx.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FD54049ADB; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:41:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from ietfx.ietf.org ([4.31.198.45]) by localhost (ietfx.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id luUFMef9mBYy; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [158.140.230.105]) by ietfx.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D72754050FDE; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:41:27 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Jay Daley Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:41:21 +1300 Message-Id: <3A531FFE-7946-41B4-B998-FA7F95BE9F89@ietf.org> References: <52C246C8-9A35-48EA-B2A8-4602210EA59B@ietf.org> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <52C246C8-9A35-48EA-B2A8-4602210EA59B@ietf.org> To: Russ Housley X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19C63) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Update on legal advice re: antitrust X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:41:33 -0000 Two more things: > On 17/02/2022, at 7:14 AM, Jay Daley wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFRuss >=20 >> On 17/02/2022, at 6:54 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >>=20 >> =EF=BB=BFJay: >>=20 >> This advice contradicts the results of the anti-trust BoF that was held m= any years ago. The minutes are here: >>=20 >> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-antitrust.txt >>=20 >> The IETF lawyer at the time strongly encouraged a written policy, but the= community conclusion was that educational material was sufficient, but that= BCPs were not needed. >>=20 >> I do not think a change to this conclusion should be made without another= BoF on the topic. The result of the discussion in gendispatch was not another BoF on this topi= c.=20 >=20 > To be clear, this advice is not recommending a BCP. It is recommending a d= ocument that explains how are existing processes and procedures are strong m= itigation against antitrust risks, which is then included in the Note Well t= o ensure that this subject is highlighted. That sounds entirely information= al to me.=20 The reason I use =E2=80=98document=E2=80=99 and not RFC here is because we a= lready have precedent in the Note Well for a non-RFC statement to be include= d, the IETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement (though the Note Well calls it the Pr= ivacy Policy and the URL similarly names it that). I=E2=80=99m not suggesti= ng that is the best way forward, just noting it as an open possibility.=20 Jay --=20 Jay Daley=20 IETF Executive Director exec-director@ietf.org >=20 > Jay >=20 > --=20 > Jay Daley=20 > IETF Executive Director > exec-director@ietf.org >>=20 >> Russ >>=20 >>=20 >>>> On Feb 15, 2022, at 9:06 PM, Jay Daley wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi All >>>=20 >>> As per the call from the gendispatch chairs [1] I=E2=80=99m moving the s= ubstantive discussion on antitrust to this list and in particular I=E2=80=99= m picking up on the issue of legal advice. The reason I=E2=80=99m sending t= his and not our lead lawyer Brad Biddle is because he=E2=80=99s on a long pl= anned sabbatical. >>>=20 >>> Brad had previously sent a lengthy message to gendispatch outlining his o= pinion [2], which is that our current processes and procedures, as set out i= n the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3], are strong mitigation aga= inst antitrust risks though we could strengthen those further. =46rom Brad=E2= =80=99s email:=20 >>>=20 >>> "I recommend that that we develop an explicit statement that addresses= antitrust compliance, and that we reference that statement in the Note Well= text that is routinely shown to participants. The substance of our explici= t statement can be straightforward, essentially just highlighting how our ex= isting processes and procedures are designed to mitigate antitrust risks and= setting our expectation that all participants will abide by applicable anti= trust laws" >>>=20 >>> Following that we received private feedback from other lawyers that, fro= m the perspective of antitrust litigators, our current processes and procedu= res would not provide strong mitigation of antitrust risk and that could onl= y be achieved with a detailed compliance policy. As Brad is not a litigator= , he and I agreed that we would get advice from specialist antitrust litigat= ors, which we have now done and what follows is a summary of their advice: >>>=20 >>> 1. We started with their assessment of the current position as set out i= n the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3]. The advice was that this= position is very strong for exactly the reasons set out in the LLC Statemen= t, that our structure and processes, as set out in the third paragraph, mana= ge the antitrust risk well. =20 >>>=20 >>> 2. It was their view that a compliance policy would make no difference i= n a civil case, which is by far the most likely litigation risk. In a crimi= nal case, which they assessed as very low risk for us, it would be a nice to= have but unlikely to make much of a difference. They noted that the set of s= tructure and processes pointed to in the LLC Statement are pretty much an an= titrust policy in themselves. >>>=20 >>> As you can see, this advice is clear and aligns closely with Brad=E2=80=99= s opinion. In particular that the substantive text of any antitrust policy w= ould be setting out how our processes and procedures mitigate antitrust risk= as per the LLC Statement. >>>=20 >>> We further asked about two specific risks that had been raised in privat= e feedback: >>>=20 >>> 3. On the specific issue of abuse of a dominant position they advised t= hat there is a very low risk that we would be liable for people abusing our s= ystems, structures and processes for this, in the same way that a hotel is n= ot liable if people use one of its meeting rooms to plan a crime. They advi= sed that nothing needs to be done to address this risk. >>>=20 >>> 4. On the specific issue of WG chairs abusing their positions they advi= sed that the current process, particularly the strong appeals process, was s= ufficient to mitigate the risk. When asked if the dearth of upheld appeals c= alled that appeals process into question, they advised that it did the oppos= ite as it demonstrated the robustness of our processes before the appeals st= age. They suggested that we could consider specific training for WG chairs a= nd could consider asking WG chairs to sign some form of declaration if we wa= nted to mitigate further. >>>=20 >>> (The last point of asking WG chairs to sign something is a big change in= the way the IETF works and not something we need to explore further.) >>>=20 >>> Based on this advice, my plan is to work with my co-authors (which may r= equire waiting for Brad to return in two months time) on a version of the dr= aft that more closely fits with the clear advice above. >>>=20 >>> Please let me know if you have any questions. >>>=20 >>> Jay=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/x49eleWF0ehs9_vir= kxJRf3t3Bw/ >>> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/tQxkkDKiiswLUlG7k= zqIgzmMmrQ/ >>> [3] https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues= / >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> --=20 >>> Jay Daley >>> IETF Executive Director >>> exec-director@ietf.org >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> antitrust-policy mailing list >> antitrust-policy@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy From nobody Wed Feb 16 12:39:57 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF963A163F; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:39:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YVeCb1aK6-9W; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:39:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76DFF3A163E; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:39:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73CA6122DDF; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:39:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (pfs.iad.rg.net [198.180.150.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5BBDE130DC7; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:39:50 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\)) From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <52C246C8-9A35-48EA-B2A8-4602210EA59B@ietf.org> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:39:50 -0500 Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4F077F5D-8403-42C0-9ECB-DC027D171B50@vigilsec.com> References: <44BE072B-4492-4ACC-99B8-66D64FC8EA0F@vigilsec.com> <52C246C8-9A35-48EA-B2A8-4602210EA59B@ietf.org> To: Jay Daley X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Update on legal advice re: antitrust X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:39:56 -0000 >> On 17/02/2022, at 6:54 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >>=20 >> =EF=BB=BFJay: >>=20 >> This advice contradicts the results of the anti-trust BoF that was = held many years ago. The minutes are here: >>=20 >> = https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-antitrust.txt >>=20 >> The IETF lawyer at the time strongly encouraged a written policy, but = the community conclusion was that educational material was sufficient, = but that BCPs were not needed. >>=20 >> I do not think a change to this conclusion should be made without = another BoF on the topic. >=20 > To be clear, this advice is not recommending a BCP. It is recommending = a document that explains how are existing processes and procedures are = strong mitigation against antitrust risks, which is then included in the = Note Well to ensure that this subject is highlighted. That sounds = entirely informational to me.=20 I understand the suggestion. Please review the recording if you want to = get to all of the details. In my opinion, NOTE WELL should not include = educational material. Russ >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Feb 15, 2022, at 9:06 PM, Jay Daley = wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi All >>>=20 >>> As per the call from the gendispatch chairs [1] I=E2=80=99m moving = the substantive discussion on antitrust to this list and in particular = I=E2=80=99m picking up on the issue of legal advice. The reason I=E2=80=99= m sending this and not our lead lawyer Brad Biddle is because he=E2=80=99s= on a long planned sabbatical. >>>=20 >>> Brad had previously sent a lengthy message to gendispatch outlining = his opinion [2], which is that our current processes and procedures, as = set out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3], are strong = mitigation against antitrust risks though we could strengthen those = further. =46rom Brad=E2=80=99s email:=20 >>>=20 >>> "I recommend that that we develop an explicit statement that = addresses antitrust compliance, and that we reference that statement in = the Note Well text that is routinely shown to participants. The = substance of our explicit statement can be straightforward, essentially = just highlighting how our existing processes and procedures are designed = to mitigate antitrust risks and setting our expectation that all = participants will abide by applicable antitrust laws" >>>=20 >>> Following that we received private feedback from other lawyers that, = from the perspective of antitrust litigators, our current processes and = procedures would not provide strong mitigation of antitrust risk and = that could only be achieved with a detailed compliance policy. As Brad = is not a litigator, he and I agreed that we would get advice from = specialist antitrust litigators, which we have now done and what follows = is a summary of their advice: >>>=20 >>> 1. We started with their assessment of the current position as set = out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3]. The advice was = that this position is very strong for exactly the reasons set out in the = LLC Statement, that our structure and processes, as set out in the third = paragraph, manage the antitrust risk well. =20 >>>=20 >>> 2. It was their view that a compliance policy would make no = difference in a civil case, which is by far the most likely litigation = risk. In a criminal case, which they assessed as very low risk for us, = it would be a nice to have but unlikely to make much of a difference. = They noted that the set of structure and processes pointed to in the LLC = Statement are pretty much an antitrust policy in themselves. >>>=20 >>> As you can see, this advice is clear and aligns closely with = Brad=E2=80=99s opinion. In particular that the substantive text of any = antitrust policy would be setting out how our processes and procedures = mitigate antitrust risk as per the LLC Statement. >>>=20 >>> We further asked about two specific risks that had been raised in = private feedback: >>>=20 >>> 3. On the specific issue of abuse of a dominant position they = advised that there is a very low risk that we would be liable for people = abusing our systems, structures and processes for this, in the same way = that a hotel is not liable if people use one of its meeting rooms to = plan a crime. They advised that nothing needs to be done to address = this risk. >>>=20 >>> 4. On the specific issue of WG chairs abusing their positions they = advised that the current process, particularly the strong appeals = process, was sufficient to mitigate the risk. When asked if the dearth = of upheld appeals called that appeals process into question, they = advised that it did the opposite as it demonstrated the robustness of = our processes before the appeals stage. They suggested that we could = consider specific training for WG chairs and could consider asking WG = chairs to sign some form of declaration if we wanted to mitigate = further. >>>=20 >>> (The last point of asking WG chairs to sign something is a big = change in the way the IETF works and not something we need to explore = further.) >>>=20 >>> Based on this advice, my plan is to work with my co-authors (which = may require waiting for Brad to return in two months time) on a version = of the draft that more closely fits with the clear advice above. >>>=20 >>> Please let me know if you have any questions. >>>=20 >>> Jay=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> [1] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/x49eleWF0ehs9_virkxJRf3t= 3Bw/ >>> [2] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/tQxkkDKiiswLUlG7kzqIgzmM= mrQ/ >>> [3] = https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues/ >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> --=20 >>> Jay Daley >>> IETF Executive Director >>> exec-director@ietf.org >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> antitrust-policy mailing list >> antitrust-policy@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy >=20 > _______________________________________________ > antitrust-policy mailing list > antitrust-policy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy From nobody Wed Feb 16 12:49:29 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BC93A16BF; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:49:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.814 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.814 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T8OWEyJtdyjp; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:49:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A05E3A1689; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:49:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4JzVS85yrWz6G9H9; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:49:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1645044552; bh=sseppPQdGKRy94LF0vJMbyACLAEG4zkI9KXkJgoMEog=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=TouzH/tXyGKs4B0IShpTaUqLfxT5QL7qWoxE8oGqwLAJU55kqJhy/YfMBrfTGrmH3 RMA3nWCBHn79ohDJRJGm2a/qmKWtwPf5Mu40bXvugEHrm40TWUOaAjFyL2+dCt8k5u rIPMivkuR+oJZSRnj5DP98RBk/zrhbeUzB/hSfb4= X-Quarantine-ID: <5zUy8yVhW-AY> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.22.111] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4JzVS81nSWz6G7sB; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:49:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:49:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Russ Housley , Jay Daley Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org References: <44BE072B-4492-4ACC-99B8-66D64FC8EA0F@vigilsec.com> <52C246C8-9A35-48EA-B2A8-4602210EA59B@ietf.org> <4F077F5D-8403-42C0-9ECB-DC027D171B50@vigilsec.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" In-Reply-To: <4F077F5D-8403-42C0-9ECB-DC027D171B50@vigilsec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Update on legal advice re: antitrust X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:49:28 -0000 With regard to the quesiton of "educational material", I think it is very important that the note well call attention to the issue of antitrust. I like the way we proposed in the last draft. I think I can live with what Jay is proposing to do instead. (And having lawyers argue with each other about it seems a bad idea.) Doing nothing seems a bad idea to me. Yours, Joel On 2/16/2022 3:39 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > > >>> On 17/02/2022, at 6:54 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >>> >>> Jay: >>> >>> This advice contradicts the results of the anti-trust BoF that was held many years ago. The minutes are here: >>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-antitrust.txt >>> >>> The IETF lawyer at the time strongly encouraged a written policy, but the community conclusion was that educational material was sufficient, but that BCPs were not needed. >>> >>> I do not think a change to this conclusion should be made without another BoF on the topic. >> >> To be clear, this advice is not recommending a BCP. It is recommending a document that explains how are existing processes and procedures are strong mitigation against antitrust risks, which is then included in the Note Well to ensure that this subject is highlighted. That sounds entirely informational to me. > > I understand the suggestion. Please review the recording if you want to get to all of the details. In my opinion, NOTE WELL should not include educational material. > > Russ > > >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 15, 2022, at 9:06 PM, Jay Daley wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> As per the call from the gendispatch chairs [1] I’m moving the substantive discussion on antitrust to this list and in particular I’m picking up on the issue of legal advice. The reason I’m sending this and not our lead lawyer Brad Biddle is because he’s on a long planned sabbatical. >>>> >>>> Brad had previously sent a lengthy message to gendispatch outlining his opinion [2], which is that our current processes and procedures, as set out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3], are strong mitigation against antitrust risks though we could strengthen those further. From Brad’s email: >>>> >>>> "I recommend that that we develop an explicit statement that addresses antitrust compliance, and that we reference that statement in the Note Well text that is routinely shown to participants. The substance of our explicit statement can be straightforward, essentially just highlighting how our existing processes and procedures are designed to mitigate antitrust risks and setting our expectation that all participants will abide by applicable antitrust laws" >>>> >>>> Following that we received private feedback from other lawyers that, from the perspective of antitrust litigators, our current processes and procedures would not provide strong mitigation of antitrust risk and that could only be achieved with a detailed compliance policy. As Brad is not a litigator, he and I agreed that we would get advice from specialist antitrust litigators, which we have now done and what follows is a summary of their advice: >>>> >>>> 1. We started with their assessment of the current position as set out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3]. The advice was that this position is very strong for exactly the reasons set out in the LLC Statement, that our structure and processes, as set out in the third paragraph, manage the antitrust risk well. >>>> >>>> 2. It was their view that a compliance policy would make no difference in a civil case, which is by far the most likely litigation risk. In a criminal case, which they assessed as very low risk for us, it would be a nice to have but unlikely to make much of a difference. They noted that the set of structure and processes pointed to in the LLC Statement are pretty much an antitrust policy in themselves. >>>> >>>> As you can see, this advice is clear and aligns closely with Brad’s opinion. In particular that the substantive text of any antitrust policy would be setting out how our processes and procedures mitigate antitrust risk as per the LLC Statement. >>>> >>>> We further asked about two specific risks that had been raised in private feedback: >>>> >>>> 3. On the specific issue of abuse of a dominant position they advised that there is a very low risk that we would be liable for people abusing our systems, structures and processes for this, in the same way that a hotel is not liable if people use one of its meeting rooms to plan a crime. They advised that nothing needs to be done to address this risk. >>>> >>>> 4. On the specific issue of WG chairs abusing their positions they advised that the current process, particularly the strong appeals process, was sufficient to mitigate the risk. When asked if the dearth of upheld appeals called that appeals process into question, they advised that it did the opposite as it demonstrated the robustness of our processes before the appeals stage. They suggested that we could consider specific training for WG chairs and could consider asking WG chairs to sign some form of declaration if we wanted to mitigate further. >>>> >>>> (The last point of asking WG chairs to sign something is a big change in the way the IETF works and not something we need to explore further.) >>>> >>>> Based on this advice, my plan is to work with my co-authors (which may require waiting for Brad to return in two months time) on a version of the draft that more closely fits with the clear advice above. >>>> >>>> Please let me know if you have any questions. >>>> >>>> Jay >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/x49eleWF0ehs9_virkxJRf3t3Bw/ >>>> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/tQxkkDKiiswLUlG7kzqIgzmMmrQ/ >>>> [3] https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues/ >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jay Daley >>>> IETF Executive Director >>>> exec-director@ietf.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> antitrust-policy mailing list >>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> antitrust-policy mailing list >> antitrust-policy@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy > > _______________________________________________ > antitrust-policy mailing list > antitrust-policy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy From nobody Wed Feb 16 12:52:13 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E16B3A16CD; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:52:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.814 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.814 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dsxztSKrTbrJ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:51:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2FAC3A16BF; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:51:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4JzVW92FZcz6GYMQ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:51:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1645044709; bh=x0VIZO+JHYitj7K44a6Jv6MZy3LYYj7Pf1UWBaTgdPo=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=XuCvm4qIDcsVFhlSIpQ5SQBVrvK1ImVjHp0MTAR5sko1we3Oizd45UuDcStVjev5c 2m1FgjSQ7IjtODmAjtgRFzYaHmIrLN98QIeqyvek3ep/0NZZKiScchycNIUbiAn9Ox HnDVET2zQfhPi0LZbnsVyl5o7y0UBfcO7g2G/aMA= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.22.111] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4JzVW84qJDz6GRHy; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:51:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <93394c81-4ea7-3580-2183-1fe924019420@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:51:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0 Content-Language: en-US From: "Joel M. Halpern" To: Russ Housley , Jay Daley Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org References: <44BE072B-4492-4ACC-99B8-66D64FC8EA0F@vigilsec.com> <52C246C8-9A35-48EA-B2A8-4602210EA59B@ietf.org> <4F077F5D-8403-42C0-9ECB-DC027D171B50@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Update on legal advice re: antitrust X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:52:12 -0000 That should have started "without regard to the "educational"..." Sorry, Joel On 2/16/2022 3:49 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > With regard to the quesiton of "educational material", I think it is > very important that the note well call attention to the issue of > antitrust.  I like the way we proposed in the last draft.  I think I can > live with what Jay is proposing to do instead.  (And having lawyers > argue with each other about it seems a bad idea.) > > Doing nothing seems a bad idea to me. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 2/16/2022 3:39 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >> >> >>>> On 17/02/2022, at 6:54 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >>>> >>>> Jay: >>>> >>>> This advice contradicts the results of the anti-trust BoF that was >>>> held many years ago.  The minutes are here: >>>> >>>>    https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-antitrust.txt >>>> >>>> The IETF lawyer at the time strongly encouraged a written policy, >>>> but the community conclusion was that educational material was >>>> sufficient, but that BCPs were not needed. >>>> >>>> I do not think a change to this conclusion should be made without >>>> another BoF on the topic. >>> >>> To be clear, this advice is not recommending a BCP. It is >>> recommending a document that explains how are existing processes and >>> procedures are strong mitigation against antitrust risks, which is >>> then included in the Note Well to ensure that this subject is >>> highlighted.  That sounds entirely informational to me. >> >> I understand the suggestion.  Please review the recording if you want >> to get to all of the details.  In my opinion, NOTE WELL should not >> include educational material. >> >> Russ >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 15, 2022, at 9:06 PM, Jay Daley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi All >>>>> >>>>> As per the call from the gendispatch chairs [1] I’m moving the >>>>> substantive discussion on antitrust to this list and in particular >>>>> I’m picking up on the issue of legal advice.  The reason I’m >>>>> sending this and not our lead lawyer Brad Biddle is because he’s on >>>>> a long planned sabbatical. >>>>> >>>>> Brad had previously sent a lengthy message to gendispatch outlining >>>>> his opinion [2], which is that our current processes and >>>>> procedures, as set out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law >>>>> Issues [3], are strong mitigation against antitrust risks though we >>>>> could strengthen those further.  From Brad’s email: >>>>> >>>>>    "I recommend that that we develop an explicit statement that >>>>> addresses antitrust compliance, and that we reference that >>>>> statement in the Note Well text that is routinely shown to >>>>> participants.  The substance of our explicit statement can be >>>>> straightforward, essentially just highlighting how our existing >>>>> processes and procedures are designed to mitigate antitrust risks >>>>> and setting our expectation that all participants will abide by >>>>> applicable antitrust laws" >>>>> >>>>> Following that we received private feedback from other lawyers >>>>> that, from the perspective of antitrust litigators, our current >>>>> processes and procedures would not provide strong mitigation of >>>>> antitrust risk and that could only be achieved with a detailed >>>>> compliance policy.  As Brad is not a litigator, he and I agreed >>>>> that we would get advice from specialist antitrust litigators, >>>>> which we have now done and what follows is a summary of their advice: >>>>> >>>>> 1.  We started with their assessment of the current position as set >>>>> out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3].  The advice >>>>> was that this position is very strong for exactly the reasons set >>>>> out in the LLC Statement, that our structure and processes, as set >>>>> out in the third paragraph, manage the antitrust risk well. >>>>> >>>>> 2.  It was their view that a compliance policy would make no >>>>> difference in a civil case, which is by far the most likely >>>>> litigation risk.  In a criminal case, which they assessed as very >>>>> low risk for us, it would be a nice to have but unlikely to make >>>>> much of a difference. They noted that the set of structure and >>>>> processes pointed to in the LLC Statement are pretty much an >>>>> antitrust policy in themselves. >>>>> >>>>> As you can see, this advice is clear and aligns closely with Brad’s >>>>> opinion.  In particular that the substantive text of any antitrust >>>>> policy would be setting out how our processes and procedures >>>>> mitigate antitrust risk as per the LLC Statement. >>>>> >>>>> We further asked about two specific risks that had been raised in >>>>> private feedback: >>>>> >>>>> 3.  On the specific issue of abuse of a dominant position they >>>>> advised that there is a very low risk that we would be liable for >>>>> people abusing our systems, structures and processes for this, in >>>>> the same way that a hotel is not liable if people use one of its >>>>> meeting rooms to plan a crime.  They advised that nothing needs to >>>>> be done to address this risk. >>>>> >>>>> 4.  On the specific issue of WG chairs abusing their positions they >>>>> advised that the current process, particularly the strong appeals >>>>> process, was sufficient to mitigate the risk.  When asked if the >>>>> dearth of upheld appeals called that appeals process into question, >>>>> they advised that it did the opposite as it demonstrated the >>>>> robustness of our processes before the appeals stage.  They >>>>> suggested that we could consider specific training for WG chairs >>>>> and could consider asking WG chairs to sign some form of >>>>> declaration if we wanted to mitigate further. >>>>> >>>>> (The last point of asking WG chairs to sign something is a big >>>>> change in the way the IETF works and not something we need to >>>>> explore further.) >>>>> >>>>> Based on this advice, my plan is to work with my co-authors (which >>>>> may require waiting for Brad to return in two months time) on a >>>>> version of the draft that more closely fits with the clear advice >>>>> above. >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions. >>>>> >>>>> Jay >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/x49eleWF0ehs9_virkxJRf3t3Bw/ >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/tQxkkDKiiswLUlG7kzqIgzmMmrQ/ >>>>> >>>>> [3] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jay Daley >>>>> IETF Executive Director >>>>> exec-director@ietf.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> antitrust-policy mailing list >>>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> antitrust-policy mailing list >>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> antitrust-policy mailing list >> antitrust-policy@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy > > _______________________________________________ > antitrust-policy mailing list > antitrust-policy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy From nobody Wed Feb 16 12:54:27 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657923A1661; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:54:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7bSghIogYfmx; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:54:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBB9E3A165C; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:52:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id h5so1256417ioj.3; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:52:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=idDhLFl119qFpiXOfEdraF5/A83rr7HqkjJKFgm+7sQ=; b=fbqkLJLwDLKICTqdLzEZ06fx0D9kZSOb32dLMgvURXwLsOuRYI0/L8zyc6GUrYkz/Q WUEmoIzh4FWuyipxzslSXqhPuKC0y/EyAvWojN1Zvi6BFfHW8lTfoF+XYxOP/CmffSzr CUZUx6naDC8RLKbiXVfJIKmtvcuIXXcI4xeD8H+On0EmVifESO75LVuWLtKlMvTS85zM NXKbvMMgOlnLD0aZ7dW1r0bAGo+54xf3fiVEG823kjy4ofAEdHxcaAMA6JhmHQLpJt23 g8MWMZbU1TzN/Ouzqoi90moGuyPANrU5+oGNKRYNrDmPrQ+pnH5G6Iedh5hHEE4MLg3a pukw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=idDhLFl119qFpiXOfEdraF5/A83rr7HqkjJKFgm+7sQ=; b=f9eTdbIBKtmMD+xGN8GAM79xog/Lyko64Ei712wu1/0f6oAL9J12rzMZpai6spjJkA RWrxKOQs7B58xOspTbcLtkDzxyCc2ZFZCO2j00XM8KohRkOfJP06W27QOOnB3ze5m4lZ Kf4xjaI9MGrEHt06rDaTB8CK1+pwRQLY51n21hoxq34IzB2UzWLb1tRa3RTeV83/LclD laosiGul3zqDcMBfddyYQ40863fVUmWacN2Pa5whFxslL7lJGvPsVLqIsAphWKXgVBdN qdNDM9zF+OVAyI5CqHOIYXmDAArDv7aTZ4jjCnYNsR0Kjn+Yhc/I0Anx5/q228ARSixc I/Lw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530XigUUfJ4PAr5O0rQDysvJL1Zt/zOR+W5JEO+CCeuvxV9Vhj6D eKc25Or69gyApqu8oVMb5p/e9GI6XtdAZNfsypg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwEzVXDNdrkjGMSxywhyCb06P3IL9F6NKXYVDRoEE0QFLRi3j22OUTYO4/YNfrZ6gdnTAnkH+euNQfF4Hc43aY= X-Received: by 2002:a02:9306:0:b0:314:3ac9:7839 with SMTP id d6-20020a029306000000b003143ac97839mr2934085jah.131.1645044773403; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:52:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <44BE072B-4492-4ACC-99B8-66D64FC8EA0F@vigilsec.com> <52C246C8-9A35-48EA-B2A8-4602210EA59B@ietf.org> <4F077F5D-8403-42C0-9ECB-DC027D171B50@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jorge Contreras Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:52:17 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: Russ Housley , Jay Daley , antitrust-policy@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005bbf6205d828d5b6" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Update on legal advice re: antitrust X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:54:26 -0000 --0000000000005bbf6205d828d5b6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "having lawyers argue with each other about it" -- one could also say that is the best route to ultimate truth (or not)... On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:49 PM Joel M. Halpern wrote= : > With regard to the quesiton of "educational material", I think it is > very important that the note well call attention to the issue of > antitrust. I like the way we proposed in the last draft. I think I can > live with what Jay is proposing to do instead. (And having lawyers > argue with each other about it seems a bad idea.) > > Doing nothing seems a bad idea to me. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 2/16/2022 3:39 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > > > > > >>> On 17/02/2022, at 6:54 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > >>> > >>> =EF=BB=BFJay: > >>> > >>> This advice contradicts the results of the anti-trust BoF that was > held many years ago. The minutes are here: > >>> > >>> > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-antitrust.txt > >>> > >>> The IETF lawyer at the time strongly encouraged a written policy, but > the community conclusion was that educational material was sufficient, bu= t > that BCPs were not needed. > >>> > >>> I do not think a change to this conclusion should be made without > another BoF on the topic. > >> > >> To be clear, this advice is not recommending a BCP. It is recommending > a document that explains how are existing processes and procedures are > strong mitigation against antitrust risks, which is then included in the > Note Well to ensure that this subject is highlighted. That sounds entire= ly > informational to me. > > > > I understand the suggestion. Please review the recording if you want t= o > get to all of the details. In my opinion, NOTE WELL should not include > educational material. > > > > Russ > > > > > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Feb 15, 2022, at 9:06 PM, Jay Daley > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi All > >>>> > >>>> As per the call from the gendispatch chairs [1] I=E2=80=99m moving t= he > substantive discussion on antitrust to this list and in particular I=E2= =80=99m > picking up on the issue of legal advice. The reason I=E2=80=99m sending = this and > not our lead lawyer Brad Biddle is because he=E2=80=99s on a long planned > sabbatical. > >>>> > >>>> Brad had previously sent a lengthy message to gendispatch outlining > his opinion [2], which is that our current processes and procedures, as s= et > out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3], are strong > mitigation against antitrust risks though we could strengthen those > further. From Brad=E2=80=99s email: > >>>> > >>>> "I recommend that that we develop an explicit statement that > addresses antitrust compliance, and that we reference that statement in t= he > Note Well text that is routinely shown to participants. The substance of > our explicit statement can be straightforward, essentially just > highlighting how our existing processes and procedures are designed to > mitigate antitrust risks and setting our expectation that all participant= s > will abide by applicable antitrust laws" > >>>> > >>>> Following that we received private feedback from other lawyers that, > from the perspective of antitrust litigators, our current processes and > procedures would not provide strong mitigation of antitrust risk and that > could only be achieved with a detailed compliance policy. As Brad is not= a > litigator, he and I agreed that we would get advice from specialist > antitrust litigators, which we have now done and what follows is a summar= y > of their advice: > >>>> > >>>> 1. We started with their assessment of the current position as set > out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3]. The advice was > that this position is very strong for exactly the reasons set out in the > LLC Statement, that our structure and processes, as set out in the third > paragraph, manage the antitrust risk well. > >>>> > >>>> 2. It was their view that a compliance policy would make no > difference in a civil case, which is by far the most likely litigation > risk. In a criminal case, which they assessed as very low risk for us, i= t > would be a nice to have but unlikely to make much of a difference. They > noted that the set of structure and processes pointed to in the LLC > Statement are pretty much an antitrust policy in themselves. > >>>> > >>>> As you can see, this advice is clear and aligns closely with Brad=E2= =80=99s > opinion. In particular that the substantive text of any antitrust policy > would be setting out how our processes and procedures mitigate antitrust > risk as per the LLC Statement. > >>>> > >>>> We further asked about two specific risks that had been raised in > private feedback: > >>>> > >>>> 3. On the specific issue of abuse of a dominant position they > advised that there is a very low risk that we would be liable for people > abusing our systems, structures and processes for this, in the same way > that a hotel is not liable if people use one of its meeting rooms to plan= a > crime. They advised that nothing needs to be done to address this risk. > >>>> > >>>> 4. On the specific issue of WG chairs abusing their positions they > advised that the current process, particularly the strong appeals process= , > was sufficient to mitigate the risk. When asked if the dearth of upheld > appeals called that appeals process into question, they advised that it d= id > the opposite as it demonstrated the robustness of our processes before th= e > appeals stage. They suggested that we could consider specific training f= or > WG chairs and could consider asking WG chairs to sign some form of > declaration if we wanted to mitigate further. > >>>> > >>>> (The last point of asking WG chairs to sign something is a big chang= e > in the way the IETF works and not something we need to explore further.) > >>>> > >>>> Based on this advice, my plan is to work with my co-authors (which > may require waiting for Brad to return in two months time) on a version o= f > the draft that more closely fits with the clear advice above. > >>>> > >>>> Please let me know if you have any questions. > >>>> > >>>> Jay > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> [1] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/x49eleWF0ehs9_virkxJRf3= t3Bw/ > >>>> [2] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/tQxkkDKiiswLUlG7kzqIgzm= MmrQ/ > >>>> [3] > https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jay Daley > >>>> IETF Executive Director > >>>> exec-director@ietf.org > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> antitrust-policy mailing list > >>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> antitrust-policy mailing list > >> antitrust-policy@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy > > > > _______________________________________________ > > antitrust-policy mailing list > > antitrust-policy@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy > > _______________________________________________ > antitrust-policy mailing list > antitrust-policy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy > --0000000000005bbf6205d828d5b6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"having lawyers argue with each=C2=A0other about it&q= uot; -- one could also say that is the best route to ultimate truth (or not= )...

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:49 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
With regard to the quesiton of "educational material", I th= ink it is
very important that the note well call attention to the issue of
antitrust.=C2=A0 I like the way we proposed in the last draft.=C2=A0 I thin= k I can
live with what Jay is proposing to do instead.=C2=A0 (And having lawyers argue with each other about it seems a bad idea.)

Doing nothing seems a bad idea to me.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/16/2022 3:39 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>
>>> On 17/02/2022, at 6:54 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:=
>>>
>>> =EF=BB=BFJay:
>>>
>>> This advice contradicts the results of the anti-trust BoF that= was held many years ago.=C2=A0 The minutes are here:
>>>
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https:= //www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-antitrust.txt
>>>
>>> The IETF lawyer at the time strongly encouraged a written poli= cy, but the community conclusion was that educational material was sufficie= nt, but that BCPs were not needed.
>>>
>>> I do not think a change to this conclusion should be made with= out another BoF on the topic.
>>
>> To be clear, this advice is not recommending a BCP. It is recommen= ding a document that explains how are existing processes and procedures are= strong mitigation against antitrust risks, which is then included in the N= ote Well to ensure that this subject is highlighted.=C2=A0 That sounds enti= rely informational to me.
>
> I understand the suggestion.=C2=A0 Please review the recording if you = want to get to all of the details.=C2=A0 In my opinion, NOTE WELL should no= t include educational material.
>
> Russ
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 15, 2022, at 9:06 PM, Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>= wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All
>>>>
>>>> As per the call from the gendispatch chairs [1] I=E2=80=99= m moving the substantive discussion on antitrust to this list and in partic= ular I=E2=80=99m picking up on the issue of legal advice.=C2=A0 The reason = I=E2=80=99m sending this and not our lead lawyer Brad Biddle is because he= =E2=80=99s on a long planned sabbatical.
>>>>
>>>> Brad had previously sent a lengthy message to gendispatch = outlining his opinion [2], which is that our current processes and procedur= es, as set out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3], are stro= ng mitigation against antitrust risks though we could strengthen those furt= her.=C2=A0 From Brad=E2=80=99s email:
>>>>
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "I recommend that that we develop an exp= licit statement that addresses antitrust compliance, and that we reference = that statement in the Note Well text that is routinely shown to participant= s.=C2=A0 The substance of our explicit statement can be straightforward, es= sentially just highlighting how our existing processes and procedures are d= esigned to mitigate antitrust risks and setting our expectation that all pa= rticipants will abide by applicable antitrust laws"
>>>>
>>>> Following that we received private feedback from other law= yers that, from the perspective of antitrust litigators, our current proces= ses and procedures would not provide strong mitigation of antitrust risk an= d that could only be achieved with a detailed compliance policy.=C2=A0 As B= rad is not a litigator, he and I agreed that we would get advice from speci= alist antitrust litigators, which we have now done and what follows is a su= mmary of their advice:
>>>>
>>>> 1.=C2=A0 We started with their assessment of the current p= osition as set out in the LLC Statement on Competition Law Issues [3].=C2= =A0 The advice was that this position is very strong for exactly the reason= s set out in the LLC Statement, that our structure and processes, as set ou= t in the third paragraph, manage the antitrust risk well.
>>>>
>>>> 2.=C2=A0 It was their view that a compliance policy would = make no difference in a civil case, which is by far the most likely litigat= ion risk.=C2=A0 In a criminal case, which they assessed as very low risk fo= r us, it would be a nice to have but unlikely to make much of a difference.= They noted that the set of structure and processes pointed to in the LLC S= tatement are pretty much an antitrust policy in themselves.
>>>>
>>>> As you can see, this advice is clear and aligns closely wi= th Brad=E2=80=99s opinion.=C2=A0 In particular that the substantive text of= any antitrust policy would be setting out how our processes and procedures= mitigate antitrust risk as per the LLC Statement.
>>>>
>>>> We further asked about two specific risks that had been ra= ised in private feedback:
>>>>
>>>> 3.=C2=A0 On the specific issue of abuse of a dominant posi= tion they advised that there is a very low risk that we would be liable for= people abusing our systems, structures and processes for this, in the same= way that a hotel is not liable if people use one of its meeting rooms to p= lan a crime.=C2=A0 They advised that nothing needs to be done to address th= is risk.
>>>>
>>>> 4.=C2=A0 On the specific issue of WG chairs abusing their = positions they advised that the current process, particularly the strong ap= peals process, was sufficient to mitigate the risk.=C2=A0 When asked if the= dearth of upheld appeals called that appeals process into question, they a= dvised that it did the opposite as it demonstrated the robustness of our pr= ocesses before the appeals stage.=C2=A0 They suggested that we could consid= er specific training for WG chairs and could consider asking WG chairs to s= ign some form of declaration if we wanted to mitigate further.
>>>>
>>>> (The last point of asking WG chairs to sign something is a= big change in the way the IETF works and not something we need to explore = further.)
>>>>
>>>> Based on this advice, my plan is to work with my co-author= s (which may require waiting for Brad to return in two months time) on a ve= rsion of the draft that more closely fits with the clear advice above.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>>>
>>>> Jay
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]=C2=A0 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/x49eleWF0ehs9_virkxJ= Rf3t3Bw/
>>>> [2]=C2=A0 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/tQxkkDKiiswLUlG7kzqI= gzmMmrQ/
>>>> [3]=C2=A0 https= ://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jay Daley
>>>> IETF Executive Director
>>>> exec-director@ietf.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/list= info/antitrust-policy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>> ant= itrust-policy@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo= /antitrust-policy
>
> _______________________________________________
> antitrust-policy mailing list
> antitru= st-policy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ant= itrust-policy

_______________________________________________
antitrust-policy mailing list
antitrust-po= licy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrus= t-policy
--0000000000005bbf6205d828d5b6-- From nobody Wed Feb 16 13:22:37 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7324F3A169A; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:22:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.614 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.614 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CYVcB9b_UkwE; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:22:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from isaac.sophia.w3.org (isaac.sophia.w3.org [193.51.208.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D13223A0120; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:22:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from anancy-651-1-177-97.w90-6.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.6.30.97] helo=[192.168.1.34]) by isaac.sophia.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nKRkc-0004Sz-Py; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:22:14 +0000 Message-ID: <6408306b-0547-fd4d-4129-3c3140f1b6f6@w3.org> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:22:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1 Content-Language: en-US To: Jorge Contreras , "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org, Russ Housley , Jay Daley References: <44BE072B-4492-4ACC-99B8-66D64FC8EA0F@vigilsec.com> <52C246C8-9A35-48EA-B2A8-4602210EA59B@ietf.org> <4F077F5D-8403-42C0-9ECB-DC027D171B50@vigilsec.com> From: Rigo Wenning In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------zwjSxI8h4aFHK8NBIFasxNOh" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Update on legal advice re: antitrust X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:22:36 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --------------zwjSxI8h4aFHK8NBIFasxNOh Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------rdBptrx0d9IYEY5gif1ZF79J"; protected-headers="v1" From: Rigo Wenning To: Jorge Contreras , "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org, Russ Housley , Jay Daley Message-ID: <6408306b-0547-fd4d-4129-3c3140f1b6f6@w3.org> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Update on legal advice re: antitrust References: <44BE072B-4492-4ACC-99B8-66D64FC8EA0F@vigilsec.com> <52C246C8-9A35-48EA-B2A8-4602210EA59B@ietf.org> <4F077F5D-8403-42C0-9ECB-DC027D171B50@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: --------------rdBptrx0d9IYEY5gif1ZF79J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQpPbiAxNi8wMi8yMDIyIDIxOjUyLCBKb3JnZSBDb250cmVyYXMgd3JvdGU6DQo+ICJoYXZp bmcgbGF3eWVycyBhcmd1ZSB3aXRoIGVhY2jCoG90aGVyIGFib3V0IGl0IiAtLSBvbmUgY291 bGQgYWxzbyBzYXkgDQo+IHRoYXQgaXMgdGhlIGJlc3Qgcm91dGUgdG8gdWx0aW1hdGUgdHJ1 dGggKG9yIG5vdCkuLi4NCg0KOikNCg0KSXQgaXMgYWxzbyBhIHF1ZXN0aW9uIHdoaWNoIHJl Z2lvbmFsIGNvbXBldGl0aW9uIGxhdyBhbmQgaG9yaXpvbnRhbCANCmd1aWRlbGluZXMgb25l IHdhbnRzIHRvIHRhcmdldCAoc2luZ2xlLCBtdWx0aXBsZT8pLiBUaGVyZSBhcmUgZGlmZmVy ZW5jZXMuDQoNClRoZSByZWFsIGNoYWxsZW5nZSBJTUhPIGlzIHRvIGNyZWF0ZSBhIHN5c3Rl bSB0aGF0IGlzIHJlYXNvbmFibHkgDQp3YXRlcnByb29mIGJ1dCBub3QgYnVyZWF1Y3JhdGlj IGF0IGFsbC4gQnkgYnVyZWF1Y3JhdGljIEkgbWVhbiB0aGluZ3MgDQpsaWtlIHRoZSByZWFk aW5nIG9mIHRoZSBhbnRpdHJ1c3QgZ3VpZGVsaW5lcyBhdCBldmVyeSBtZWV0aW5nIG9mIGV2 ZXJ5IA0KV0cgbGlrZSBpbiB0aGUgZGUtanVyZSBvcmdzIGFuZCBzb21lIG90aGVyIGNvbnNv cnRpYS4NCg0KVGhvc2UgYmVpbmcganVzdCBteSAyIGNlbnRzIGZyb20gdGhlIHNpZGVsaW5l IC4uLiBOb3cgYmFjayB0byBsdXJraW5nIG1vZGUNCg0KICAtLQ0KICBSZWdhcmRzDQogIFJp Z28NCg== --------------rdBptrx0d9IYEY5gif1ZF79J-- --------------zwjSxI8h4aFHK8NBIFasxNOh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wsF5BAABCAAjFiEEvjoqZTaQXUCffv5tfUgJiEo2QCsFAmINawQFAwAAAAAACgkQfUgJiEo2QCvy xhAAmkdJ1Kz1qniWVB0VBDoGk6U1EGXD0IsezyVI/nFFrK4w70oKIjctUim+MiXnNTztOk9+tWhz bJesOQwzVJPPzkcmDL/ZkhaKo40L06Q34OPQlgG6/42bVlOg3n3ub0gIXPn0xDACAJQ+c7ht3DvU pRjMdSnN3a3imwk0rcZs9AeAi5tHQthKI+OY95UeqRL/wY/1vqgCtKMOI0bCoA/pLOAuAF8kZUlv MQxW8btzNoysNTQ7n3MFQzUGUXnJOcbq7GjvL/T0EzKjuhHrF/sDwy56czjyZrgIb1jCkKjSSd8w cp7g/nebH/hjDQF+YeX8Sinwf3W5m47ItlwE5yPi1gGb7mwKdehUlUhW+YZIeM8xtWvzen1h0IDd KnCRAH4WCQg7t8GG6zDFjaRdWPikwp6/ZEaeLWHa1CtlFp/AK22BO9Uk9sVE2vQynGgkv4Bm3vWr Z9EG08W+eqQtEfFgDVpKQJamEfav2cgNn0T/IGt2bWqTAFdxyABMcXnTQGv7LwNTW6h9I/SBwFIn LCKjya2JVHPrrRvfCKYg9o9oxXqPR3NtpdEzpcym+EJuH0WPjGsBZ/Z+1vVf9lSMjJITzd7BGPC+ P3Mppr0o2NAksdwaIAtY6AhALy52iiU4iCvoMkL5uDC4weGUPmlcafi1zdI3TNQGqbxE3qXyP8Cz E0o= =YaIk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------zwjSxI8h4aFHK8NBIFasxNOh--