Subject: [Gendispatch] dispatching draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust

From: Kirsty Paine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 08:54:31 +0000

Hi gendispatch,

We'd like to gauge consensus on-list after the IETF 112 meeting about how
best to dispatch draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust [1], noting it has
had an update (-02) in December (i.e. since the meeting) based on feedback
from that gendispatch meeting.

In short, we summarised consensus as: lawyers should provide specific text
that meets the need, with an AD sponsor that allows plenty of opportunity
for community comment (though not a WG) as the best way forward. (Important
note: we did not hear a perfect way forward, but this was the best way
forward of all options suggested).

*Should the work be done?*
>From the 112 meeting, chairs thought the community was clearly engaged in
the topic and keen to see it done but done 'well'. We didn't hear anyone
opposed to protecting the IETF or its participants and, as this is what the
document aims to do, it has a future somewhere.

*How should it be done?*
Looking at minutes, we heard from the meeting that people wanted:
1. "the lawyers" to write something, then
2. for that something to be brought back to the IETF for community
discussion - rather than have engineers/the IETF community try to write
legal documentation.

We note that this is the intended approach with
draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust, with Brad Biddle as an author from the
start.

The mechanism for doing this - to ensure enough feedback and discussion -
was suggested to be three-fold:
1) updates on the draft's progression to gendispatch (i.e. the draft shared
on list recently) with
2) discussion held on a separate list - most recommended was the existing
and unused antitrust-policy list [2]. The sponsoring AD will manage the
discussion on this antitrust list.
3) putting something on ietf-announce, so that more folks in the community
are sighted.

We heard opposition to forming a WG to avoid having engineers/the IETF
community try to write legal documentation, but we heard a strong need for
community input. Hence, this dispatch outcome.

Please share your endorsement for this approach, or your alternative
dispatch option, to the list.

Kirsty & Pete
gendispatch co-chairs

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/antitrust-policy/

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:41:54 +0000

I think you wrote a very good summary and I endorse it.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 14:00:54 +1300

> I think you wrote a very good summary and I endorse it.

Agreed.

     Brian

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:36:29 -0500

>> I think you wrote a very good summary and I endorse it.

Also agree; couldn't think of a better way to dispatch this work,

-M

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Jan 2022 12:08:32 -0500

>discussion on this antitrust list.

I went back and looked at the discussions on that list almost exactly a decade ago.

It's startling how similar they were to the discussions we've been having about this draft,
e.g., what's the actual problem we're solving, what would be realistic remedies.

R's,
John