diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc9680.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc9680.txt | 372 |
1 files changed, 372 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9680.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9680.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8d5f0b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9680.txt @@ -0,0 +1,372 @@ + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Halpern, Ed. +Request for Comments: 9680 Ericsson +Category: Informational J. Daley +ISSN: 2070-1721 IETF Administration LLC + October 2024 + + + Antitrust Guidelines for IETF Participants + +Abstract + + This document provides education and guidance for IETF participants + on compliance with antitrust laws and how to reduce antitrust risks + in connection with IETF activities. + +Status of This Memo + + This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is + published for informational purposes. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents + approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet + Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9680. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents + (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must + include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the + Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described + in the Revised BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction + 2. Background + 2.1. A Note About Terminology + 2.2. Purpose of Antitrust or Competition Law + 2.3. Overlapping Areas of Concern + 3. Existing IETF Antitrust Compliance Strategy + 4. Additional Recommendations + 4.1. Topics to Avoid + 4.2. Obtaining Independent Legal Advice + 4.3. Escalating Antitrust-Related Concerns + 5. IANA Considerations + 6. Security Considerations + 7. References + 7.1. Normative References + 7.2. Informative References + Authors' Addresses + +1. Introduction + + Standards development frequently requires collaboration between + competitors. Cooperation among competitors can spark concerns about + antitrust law or competition law violations. This document is + intended to educate IETF participants about how to reduce antitrust + risks in connection with IETF activities. Nothing in this document + changes existing IETF policies. + +2. Background + +2.1. A Note About Terminology + + "Antitrust law" and "competition law" are used synonymously in this + document. "Antitrust" is the word that is used in the US and in + several other jurisdictions; "competition law" is the terminology + used in Europe and in many other jurisdictions. There can be some + nuanced differences between how different jurisdictions address this + general area of law, and sometimes people use the terminology + differently to highlight these nuances, but here they are being used + as synonyms. + +2.2. Purpose of Antitrust or Competition Law + + The U.S. Department of Justice states that "the goal of the antitrust + laws is to protect economic freedom and opportunity by promoting free + and fair competition in the marketplace. Competition in a free + market benefits consumers through lower prices, better quality and + greater choice. Competition provides businesses the opportunity to + compete on price and quality, in an open market and on a level + playing field, unhampered by anticompetitive restraints" [DOJ]. + Similarly, the European Commission states that the purpose of its + competition law rules is "to make EU markets work better, by ensuring + that all companies compete equally and fairly on their merits" which + "benefits consumers, businesses and the European economy as a whole" + [EC]. Fundamentally, antitrust or competition laws are designed to + facilitate open, fair, robust competition, ultimately to benefit + consumers. + +2.3. Overlapping Areas of Concern + + There are two overlapping areas of concern the IETF has in connection + with antitrust compliance: + + * Most acutely, the IETF cannot have anyone who is officially + representing the IETF, in any capacity, engage in anticompetitive + behavior and create liability for the IETF. + + * Additionally, the IETF cannot be a forum where participants engage + in anticompetitive behavior, even if direct liability for that + behavior falls on those participants and not the IETF, to avoid + reputational harm to the IETF. + +3. Existing IETF Antitrust Compliance Strategy + + Compliance with the BCPs and other relevant policies that document + the established rules and norms of the IETF facilitates compliance + with antitrust law, as the IETF structure and processes are designed + to mitigate antitrust risks. As a reminder, participants are + required to comply with the following policies: + + * The Internet Standards Process as described in BCP 9 [BCP9], which + is designed to "provide a fair, open, and objective basis for + developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet Standards" (RFC + 2026) and provides robust procedural rules, including an appeals + process. + + * The Working Group Guidelines and Procedures described in BCP 25 + [BCP25], which emphasize requirements for "open and fair + participation and for thorough consideration of technical + alternatives" (RFC 2418) and describe the IETF's consensus-based + decision-making processes. + + * The IETF framework that participants engage in their individual + capacity, not as company representatives (see [BCP9] and [LLC]), + and "use their best engineering judgment to find the best solution + for the whole Internet, not just the best solution for any + particular network, technology, vendor, or user," as described in + RFC 7154 [BCP54]. + + * The IETF's intellectual property rights policies as set forth in + BCP 78 [BCP78] and BCP 79 [BCP79]. These policies are carefully + designed to "benefit the Internet community and the public at + large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others" (RFC + 8179). + + * The established conflict of interest policies, such as the IESG + Conflict of Interest Policy + (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/iesg-coi-policy/), the IAB + Conflict of Interest Policy (https://www.iab.org/about/conflict- + of-interest-policy/), or the IETF LLC Conflict of Interest Policy + (https://www.ietf.org/administration/policies-procedures/conflict- + interest/), if and when applicable. + +4. Additional Recommendations + + The most important recommendation is for IETF participants to + rigorously follow all applicable IETF policies as set out in + Section 3. + + This section provides more information about: + + * certain topics that are generally inappropriate for discussion in + a standards-setting environment, + + * the importance of participants obtaining independent legal advice, + as appropriate, and + + * paths to escalate antitrust-related concerns. + +4.1. Topics to Avoid + + While IETF participants are expected to participate as individuals, + their actions could still be construed as representing their + employer, whatever their role. Therefore, participants should be + aware that some topics are generally inappropriate for discussion in + a standards-setting environment where representatives from + competitors to their employer are likely to be present. These topics + include the following: + + * discussion about product pricing or profit margins among potential + competitors, + + * the details of business relationships between specific vendors and + customers, + + * details about the supply chains of specific companies, + + * discussions about market opportunities for specific companies, and + + * employee compensation or benefits among potentially competitive + employers. + + While not all discussions of these topics would necessarily be + antitrust violations, and recognizing that analysis of antitrust + considerations will be different for differently positioned + participants, prudence suggests that avoiding these specific topics + in the context of the collaborative IETF process best mitigates + antitrust risks for the IETF and its participants. + + Note that antitrust law reaches beyond these topics, however. For + example, any behavior that amounts to an agreement to restrain + marketplace competition, or that facilitates monopolization of + particular markets, raises potential antitrust risks. Participants + are responsible for ensuring that their conduct does not violate any + antitrust laws or regulations. + +4.2. Obtaining Independent Legal Advice + + All IETF participants are expected to behave lawfully when engaged in + IETF activities, including by following applicable antitrust law. + The IETF does not provide legal advice to participants, and instead + recommends that participants obtain independent legal advice as + needed. + +4.3. Escalating Antitrust-Related Concerns + + Participants can report potential antitrust issues in the context of + IETF activities by contacting IETF legal counsel (legal@ietf.org) or + via the IETF LLC whistleblower service [Whistleblower]. Note that + reports will only be assessed for their impact upon the IETF; + participants directly impacted by an antitrust issue are responsible + for obtaining their own legal advice. + +5. IANA Considerations + + This document has no IANA actions. + +6. Security Considerations + + This document introduces no known security aspects to the IETF or + IETF participants. + +7. References + +7.1. Normative References + + [BCP9] Best Current Practice 9, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>. + At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: + + Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision + 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>. + + Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation + and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft + Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, DOI 10.17487/RFC5657, + September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5657>. + + Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the + Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410>. + + Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official + Protocol Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7100, December 2013, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7100>. + + Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization + of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7127, January 2014, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7127>. + + Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in + an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, DOI 10.17487/RFC7475, + March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7475>. + + Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream + Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8789, June 2020, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8789>. + + Rosen, B., "Responsibility Change for the RFC Series", + BCP 9, RFC 9282, DOI 10.17487/RFC9282, June 2022, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9282>. + + [BCP25] Best Current Practice 25, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp25>. + At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: + + Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and + Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418, + September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>. + + Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the + Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3934, October 2004, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3934>. + + Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment + Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March + 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>. + + Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IETF Anti- + Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF + Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF + Administration LLC", BCP 25, RFC 8716, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8716, February 2020, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716>. + + [BCP54] Best Current Practice 54, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp54>. + At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: + + Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54, + RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>. + + [BCP78] Best Current Practice 78, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>. + At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: + + Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights + Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>. + + [BCP79] Best Current Practice 79, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>. + At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: + + Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property + Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>. + +7.2. Informative References + + [DOJ] U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, "Mission", + <https://www.justice.gov/atr/mission>. + + [EC] European Commission, "Competition", + <https://commission.europa.eu/about-european-commission/ + departments-and-executive-agencies/competition_en>. + + [LLC] IETF Administration LLC, "IETF Administration LLC + Statement on Competition Law Issues", 28 July 2020, + <https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition- + law-issues/>. + + [Whistleblower] + IETF Administration LLC, "IETF LLC Whistleblower Policy", + <https://www.ietf.org/administration/policies-procedures/ + whistleblower/>. + +Authors' Addresses + + Joel M. Halpern (editor) + Ericsson + P.O. Box 6049 + Leesburg, VA 20178 + United States of America + Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com + + + Jay Daley + IETF Administration LLC + 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200 + Wilmington, DE 19801 + United States of America + Email: jay@staff.ietf.org |