G’day Geoff
Your comments (and mine) are drifting into areas of the law for which I believe neither of us are qualified to comment (I am certainly not qualified). I suggest
we leave the interpretation of the law to the lawyers.
I understand that IEEE-SA SB Procom have recently started an activity on this topic (see below). I am sure that IEEE-SA legal counsel will provide appropriate
legal advice:
·
Name:
ProCom Ad Hoc on Interest Groups
·
Charter:
Determine whether changes are needed in IEEE-SA policies (SASB Bylaws or SASB OpMan) or procedures regarding evidence of dominance in WGs, procedures for applying corrective action for dominance, or specifying corrective actions for dominance.
·
Chair:
Ted Burse
Andrew
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2017 7:55 AM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
Cc: Geoff Thompson; Benjamin Rolfe; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Possible Signs of Dominance action
Andrew-
Ben asserted, “It's not reasonable or valid to disallow individuals who are, or who's employers or customers are members of such SIGs and alliances to disclose
information about their activities with those organizations”.
You responded, “I disagree. It is perfectly reasonable to disallow what is illegal, even if it is not prosecuted.”. What I don’t understand is why you
believe people and companies discussing proposals for IEEE 802 standards outside of IEEE 802 is necessarily illegal. I agree that such discussions could stray into illegal territory, but my personal experience is that they very rarely do, and if they do then
the participants quickly recognise the inappropriate behaviour and stop. Could you explain?
IF the discussions are by individuals and not between companies
AND IF they are limited to how to express an agreed upon technical approach in a draft
IF the discussions are by individuals and not between companies
AND IF they are limited to how to refine an agreed upon technical approach in a draft
IF the discussions are by individuals and not between companies
AND IF they are limited to how to the merits of various technical approaches in a draft
IF the discussions are by individuals or companies
AND IF they discuss how to agree on voting for a technical approach in a draft for which there is a competing proposal
But since competitors getting together to discuss how to make a technology a winner is generally considered on the outside to be a suspicious activity it needs to be done carefully. When the parties to the discussions are companies and
competitors the parties each need to have a lawyer in the room.
Ben also asserted that “How an individual participant forms their opinions is none of our business”.
You responded, “That position is quite contrary to my understanding of the rules of IEEE and 802
(and I believe that I have been more thoroughly instructed in that than you have)”.
I have sat in on inquisitions where that topic was precisely the point of the inquiry
and the inquiry was being made of 802 participants by an IEEE-SA attorney.
Further, Ben (and all other 802 participants) are shown the following slide
Could you point out the rules that require IEEE 802 participants to explain the process of how they came to opinion?
I'm not sure that there is a specific rule that governs any requirement "to explain"
just a requirement to not do it. The IEEE Code of Ethics is often cited in this regard as well as the notification that we will operate under and adhere to applicable law.
Ultimately, any requirement "to explain" would be imposed by a court as a compulsion to answer questions on a sworn basis (although one might escape via a 5th amendment exception)
And why is the “how” relevant anyway.
The "how" is relevant where there is evidence that a decision was made for other than technical reasons or with a thumb on the scale.
Isn’t it more important to understand what the opinion is and technical justification of that opinion?
Most of the SIGs and Alliances I've had experience with are not "open" as they require confidentiality agreements between the alliance and members.
It's not reasonable or valid to disallow individuals who are, or who's employers or customers are members of such SIGs and alliances to disclose information about their activities with those organizations.
I disagree. It is perfectly reasonable to disallow what is illegal, even if it is not prosecuted.
This seems to have gone from a slippery slope to a cliff. What may be discussed by individuals outside of meetings is not within our scope. We present
clearly the rules for what can be discussed in our meetings. That is our responsibility.
How an individual participant forms their opinions is none of our business.
That position is quite contrary to my understanding of the rules of IEEE and 802
(and I believe that I have been more thoroughly instructed in that than you have)
The role of 802 leadership is to protect the opportunity for open debate of various opinions in our meetings through proper application of our rules for
conducting meetings, preparing drafts and conducting ballots. It is in this process that the result of any collaboration becomes open and transparent, if we are following our rules and processes correctly.
FWIW.
Ben
On 4/11/2017 10:55 PM, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
I agree that the existence of the SIGs should be made known, in the same way as we require the existence of affiliations to be made
known. So we agree that there should be no secret formal SIGs. The issue of informal SIGs is more complex. I suspect we can’t do much about them in the same way we don’t bother trying to require bilateral private conversations between people at IEEE meetings
are declared
I was arguing that it was unreasonable and impractical to impose any rules that require the activities of the formal SIGs to be open,
in the same way it would be unreasonable and impractical to require companies to reveal intra-company conversations or inter-company conversations. Companies should have the right to keep such conversation private if they choose to do so. Do you agree?
Of course, regardless of what we decide, companies will always need to satisfy anti-trust laws.
Adrian, thanks for drafting this document. They highlight how difficult it is to recognise dominance and differentiate it from reasonable behaviour
Paul, you commented, "In my opinion, as long as the group of individuals working on building consensus are open and transparent in their activities,
it probably is OK".
· Are
you proposing that anyone participating in a formal (or informal) SIG be required to declare that in the same way we require company affiliations to be declared? If so then I agree because it is just as important to know SIG affiliations as company affiliations.
Indeed, possibly more so because SIGs have the potential of being much bigger than companies in terms of voting members.
· Are
you proposing that the activities of the SIG be open and transparent? If so then I disagree because this would deny free association. If you went down this path then you would also need to require intra company discussions be made open and transparent. I think
you will agree that is impractical, as well as unacceptable.
The purpose is not to deny "free association" but to deny secret collusion which constitutes or gets suspiciously close to restraint of trade/monopolistic behavior.
Outside free association is fine (whether or not it has to be documented I will leave to the lawyers), secret SIGs are not.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
|