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 ([email protected]) 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: [email protected]


  Jay Daley
  IETF Administration LLC
  1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200
  Wilmington, DE 19801
  United States of America
  Email: [email protected]

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.fnord.one. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.