path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9680.txt

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