Session Date/Time: 08 Nov 2021 16:00

gendispatch

Summary

The gendispatch session covered four key topics: updates to RFC 2026 regarding RFC Editor responsibilities, an update to RFC 2028 detailing IETF participants and organizations, modifications to the Nom-Com process, and proposed antitrust guidelines. Decisions were reached for the RFC 2026 and 2028 updates, directing them to AD sponsorship. The Nom-Com discussion highlighted the need for a deeper dive into "no-brainer" mechanical fixes and broader talent pipeline issues, likely via a BOF. The antitrust guidelines generated significant discussion on scope, venue, and the balance between organizational protection and participant education, with no immediate consensus on a dispatch path, leading to continued mailing list discussion.

Key Discussion Points

1. RFC Series Responsibility Change (RFC 2026 Update)

Context: This document is part of the broader RFC Editor Future Development Program, which is establishing an RSWG (RFC Series Working Group) for policy proposals and an RSAB (RFC Series Approvals Body) for approvals, shifting certain responsibilities from the IAB.
Purpose: The draft specifically updates RFC 2026, which outlines IAB responsibilities, to reflect this shift. It is a very short document, primarily moving a responsibility statement.
Proposed Dispatch: Elliot Leiba (presenting for Brian Carpenter) suggested dispatching it as an AD-sponsored draft, to be approved concurrently with the new RFC Editor model.
Discussion: Lars Eggert (AD) confirmed willingness to sponsor. Rich agreed, noting it's a "trivial" update given the larger RFC Editor process. No objections were raised.

2. RFC 2028 Update

Context: RFC 2028, which describes the individuals and organizations involved in the IETF standards process, is significantly out of date.
Proposed Changes: Rich (presenter) outlined changes including adding the "responsible AD," reordering roles to follow a typical workflow, adding the LLC and IETF Trust to the list of organizations, and general wordsmithing for style consistency.
Proposed Dispatch: Rich indicated he was fine with it being AD-sponsored.
Discussion: Colin Perkins supported the document as "perfectly reasonable." Lars Eggert confirmed his willingness to be the sponsoring AD. No objections were raised.

3. Modifications to the Nom-Com Process

Context: Discussion revolved around three related drafts proposing changes to Nom-Com terms, incumbency, and talent development.
- One draft proposed a "gap year" after two terms of service.
- Another suggested two terms as a normal maximum, allowing Nom-Com flexibility to extend with explanation, with a specific exception for the IETF Chair role.
- A third proposed processing incumbents first before soliciting new candidates.
Core Issue: All drafts broadly aimed at encouraging a break from leadership positions (IESG/IAB) after two terms, promoting new talent development.
Discussion Highlights:
- Concerns: Barry Leiba and Phillip Hallam-Baker voiced concerns about hard limits, potentially reducing the pool of qualified applicants, especially in under-resourced areas (Ops, Int, Sec ADs). Hallam-Baker also cited current virtual-only IETF mode as a bad time for institutional shocks.
- Flexibility vs. Rules: There was a debate between giving Nom-Com flexible guidance (Elliot, Barry) and setting clearer expectations or even term limits (Colin Perkins), with some arguing current "vague advice" favors incumbents and hinders new talent.
- Scope: Lucille Parlin and John Klensin suggested that these issues should be part of a broader re-examination of the entire Nom-Com document and process, addressing existing "brokenness" and technical fixes.
- Venue: Suggestions for dispatch included a BOF (Barry, Robert Sparks, John Klensin, Sam Hartman), a targeted Working Group (Lucille Parlin), or AD-sponsored for "no-brainers" (Lars Eggert). Robert Sparks suggested the work might be more about "re-engineering the way we build the inputs" to Nom-Com rather than just new rules.
- AD Perspective: Lars Eggert expressed discomfort with AD-sponsoring Nom-Com specific changes unless "really, really simple and urgent," favoring a BOF for broader discussion.
Chairs' Summary: The discussion pointed towards two tracks: identifying and listing "no-brainer" mechanical fixes in the Nom-Com document (for which a volunteer is needed), and then a BOF to discuss the dispatch of those fixes, alongside the more complex issues of term limits and talent pipeline, as potential work items for a broader Nom-Com Working Group.

4. Antitrust Guidelines

Context: Joel Halpern presented a draft proposing antitrust guidelines for IETF participants, intended to be part of the Notewell (BCP or Informational).
Purpose: The goal is to provide community-agreed guidelines (not rules) to protect participants and the IETF organization from antitrust issues. Joel emphasized that "just follow the law" is insufficient guidance.
Draft Content: Section 5 was recently rewritten to clarify "Additional Guidelines" covering:
- Adoption and implementation of standards (avoid suppressing competition).
- Exchange of competitive information (e.g., pricing, market shares).
- Market requirements (avoid collusion to influence markets).
- Behavior of those from companies with dominant market positions.
Discussion Highlights:
- Necessity: John Klensin and Andrew Alston strongly supported the need for such guidance, citing past painful experiences in other SDOs and the potential for severe negative impacts if unaddressed.
- Scope & Audience:
  - Organizational Protection vs. Participant Education: Torrellis Eckert, Pete Resnick, and Alissa Cooper highlighted a potential dichotomy: whether the primary goal is protecting the IETF organization (which might require a simple, concise policy akin to W3C's, potentially developed by the LLC) or educating participants (which might be better served by training materials rather than an RFC providing "legal advice").
  - Jurisdiction: Colin Smedberg raised concerns about the document's "American" feel and the complexities of international competition law.
  - Coverage: Colin Perkins suggested the draft might be too narrowly focused on IETF standards development and should consider interactions with IRTF, IAB programs, and the Independent Stream.
- Venue for Discussion:
  - AD-sponsored: Phillip Hallam-Baker, Colin Smedberg, and Richard Barnes leaned towards AD-sponsorship, possibly involving lawyers, but some expressed concern about community consensus.
  - Working Group: Elliot Leiba and Andrew Alston advocated for a targeted or "mini" Working Group to allow for community input and lawyer participation, given the complexity.
  - LLC-led: Alissa Cooper, Wendy Seltzer, and Richard Barnes suggested that for organizational policy, the LLC could develop and adopt it directly, similar to other LLC policies, with community feedback. For education, IETF Council-led training was proposed.
  - Joel Halpern's Counter: Joel argued the LLC is prohibited by its charter from influencing IETF processes or giving advice to participants, making a direct LLC-led approach problematic for participant guidance.
- Lawyer Involvement: Pete Resnick expressed strong reservations about allowing company lawyers to directly inform the discussion, fearing they would prioritize their company's liability over the IETF's. Brad Biddle (IETF LLC counsel) acknowledged the conflict of interest but stated mechanisms exist to manage this in other SDOs.
- Status Quo: Brad Biddle clarified that the "status quo" is not "doing nothing"; the IETF has a strategy for managing antitrust risks. He is comfortable with the current strategy but open to iterating and improving it from legal and community perspectives. Jay Daley (IETF ED) emphasized that organizational risk stems from participant behavior, making a split impossible.
Chairs' Summary: There was broad agreement that some work on antitrust issues is important and desired by the community, beyond the status quo. However, no clear consensus emerged on the specific scope (organizational protection vs. participant education), the appropriate venue, or the process (AD-sponsored, WG, LLC-led, BOF).

Decisions and Action Items

RFC Series Responsibility Change (RFC 2026 Update):
- Decision: To be dispatched as an AD-sponsored document.
- Action Item: Lars Eggert to be the sponsoring AD.
RFC 2028 Update:
- Decision: To be dispatched as an AD-sponsored document.
- Action Item: Lars Eggert to be the sponsoring AD.

Next Steps

Modifications to the Nom-Com Process:
- Action Item: A volunteer is needed to consolidate and list the "no-brainer" mechanical fixes required for the Nom-Com document.
- Action Item: A BOF will be proposed to discuss:
  1. The appropriate dispatch path for the identified mechanical fixes (e.g., direct to WG chartering).
  2. The broader issues of Nom-Com term limits and talent pipeline, considering whether these should be included in the same potential Working Group or addressed separately.
Antitrust Guidelines:
- Action Item: The discussion will continue on the gen dispatch mailing list.
- Action Item: Brad Biddle (IETF LLC Counsel) is requested to summarize for the mailing list the appropriate paths forward and recommend preferred approaches, considering the various perspectives raised (organizational protection, participant education, scope, legal implications, and procedural options).