►
From YouTube: IETF112-GENDISPATCH-20211108-1600
Description
GENDISPATCH meeting session at IETF112
2021/11/08 1600
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/proceedings/
A
Okay,
welcome
everyone
to
gen
dispatch
and
you
should
be
able
to
see
slides
and
you
should
be
able
to
hear
me
talking
so
if
neither
of
those
things
are
true
for
you
then
take
a
moment
to
check
your
settings
and
welcome
to
gender
dispatch.
I'm
kirsty
payne,
one
of
the
co-chairs
of
gen
dispatch
and
yeah.
Welcome
to
the
final
session
of
the
first
day
of
itf
112.
A
we're
keen
to
get
the
show
on
the
road.
We've
got
pete
taking
notes
in
hedgedock,
but
if
someone
would
like
to
join
or
many
of
us
would
like
to
join-
and
you
know
the
more
the
merrier
when
it
comes
to
minute
taking
and
so
do
go
over
there
and
make
notes
the
link
is
in
java
and
otherwise
we'll
just
kind
of
get
started
here
today.
A
A
So
just
be
aware
that
when
you
participate
and
the
definition
of
participation
is
defined
in
bcp
79
you're
agreeing
to
follow
all
these
processes
and
policies
and
if
you're
aware
of
various
contributions
being
covered
by
patents,
then
you
must
disclose.
That
fact
will
not
participate
in
the
discussion.
All
of
that
stuff
is
in
the
bcps
below,
and
you
know
that
this
meeting
is
being
recorded
and
that
this
recording
may
be
made
public
personal
information
you
give
to
the
itf
is
handled
with
the
privacy
statement.
A
And,
finally,
you
agree
to
work
respectfully
with
other
participants,
and
you
should
contact
the
ombuds
team.
If
you
have
any
questions
or
concerns
about
that.
So
there's
a
nice
list
of
bcps
and
we
are
for
this
itf,
just
making
a
note
really
well
and
to
really
hammer
this
point
home.
Don't
let
the
no
world
become
a
boiler
plate
that
you
don't
really
listen
to
do.
Take
note
of
it.
A
Itf
meetings,
virtual
meetings
and
mailing
lists
are
intended
for
professional
collaboration
and
networking,
no
pun
intended
and
there's
a
few
lists
and
conducts
and
policies
there
on
anti-harassment
procedures
and
guidelines
for
conduct.
But
as
we
say,
if
you
have
any
concerns
about
behavior,
you
see
get
in
touch
with
the
ombuds
team
and
so
that
we
can
have
an
environment
where
people
are
able
to
do
their
best
technical
work
and
we're
all
treated
with
dignity,
decency
and
respect.
A
A
We
move
on
to
online
meeting
tips,
so
you
should
be
well
in
the
swing
of
it.
Now.
This
is
our
sixth
virtual
itf,
but
it
never
hurts
to
have
a
refresh.
Please
make
sure
that
your
video
is
off
unless
you
are
sharing
or
presenting
during
a
session
got
me
and
pete
here
just
so,
you
can
see
who
we
are
as
we
carry
on
through
the
session
and
but
mute
your
microphone.
A
Unless
you
are
speaking,
we
encourage
you
to
use
a
headset
and
for
those
of
you
that
remember
blue
sheets
from
the
in-person
meetings,
you
needn't
worry
about
those
they're
being
generated
by
the
itf
data
tracker
logins.
You
have
chat
rooms
so
on
your
screen.
You
should
have
jabber
just
on
the
left
chat
scrolling
through
there
and
if
you
need
any
more
information
or
assistance
on
the
meat
echo
set
up,
then
there's
lots
of
guidance
online
on
the
itf
pages.
A
Here
are
a
few
links
just
to
show
you
and
that's
why
jab
it
you
can
find
jabba.
You
can
find
the
meat
echo,
although,
if
you're
here,
then
you've
already
got
that.
I
suppose-
and
there
are
the
meeting
notes
there
if
you
want
to
head
over
and
help
taking
minutes,
you've
had
all
the
slides
and
materials
for
the
session
at
the
link.
A
That's
on
the
page
there
and
just
to
note,
while
we're
here
that
we
did
update
the
charter
after
the
discussion
at
the
end
of
the
last
itf
meeting,
and
that
draft
charter
is
still
available
on
data
tracker.
So
if
you
have
any
comments
or
questions
about
it,
then
please
do
get
in
touch
so
far.
We've
had
new
feedback
really,
which
is
maybe
a
good
sign
that
everyone's
quite
happy
with
it.
A
So
so,
as
we
start
a
reminder
on
the
gen
dispatch
process
now
we
know
it's
natural
for
engineers
to
get
excited
about
the
work
that's
being
brought
here,
but
just
remember
that
our
ground
rules
we
do
not
adopt
drafts.
We
just
recommend
next
steps
for
new
work,
so
this
is
not
about
finding
the
ins
and
outs
of
the
draft
and
working
on
the
draft.
Here
we
are
finding
the
way
and
the
place
that
the
work
should
be
done.
A
However,
few
possible
outcomes
that
are
listed
here,
this
list
is
not
exhaustive,
so
the
main
ones
are
to
direct
the
work
to
an
existing
working
group,
maybe
to
propose
a
new,
more
focused
working
group
to
get
some
ad
sponsorship.
If
we
have
a
willing
ad
to
go
away
and
discuss
it,
a
bit
more
and
develop
it
more
in
the
community
before
dispatching
it
to
one
of
these
places
or
finally,
that
the
itf
should
not
work
on
this
topic.
So
please
keep
in
mind
throughout
today,
as
you
participate
when
you're
at
the
mic.
A
Please
state
your
name
before
you
speak.
That
can
be
easy
to
forget
in
a
virtual
environment,
so
do
state
your
name
before
you
make.
Your
comment
always
keep
the
dispatch
question
in
mind.
What
do
you
think
should
happen
to
the
work?
Where
should
it
go
to
be
worked
on,
or
should
it
be
worked
on
at
all
and
try
to
keep
your
comment
two
to
three
minutes
to
allow
plentiful
discussion
and
lots
of
people
to
give
their
input
so
to
speak,
you
need
to
join
the
queue
and
that's
in
the
top
left
of
the
screen.
A
Just
underneath
your
name.
You'll
have
a
hand
icon
with
a
line
through
it.
If
you
click
that
that
will
put
you
in
the
queue
and
then
chairs
or
presenters
will
manage
the
queue
and
bring
you
forward,
and
you
can
then
send
audio
and
or
video
if
you'd
like
by
clicking
the
microphone
and
the
camera
buttons
just
next
to
that
hand
as
well
so
hopefully,
you've
found
where
those
buttons
are
but
give
us
a
shout
in
java.
A
First
and
then
we
are
looking
at
all
of
these
items
today
got
a
lot
of
discussion,
but
also
10
minutes
of
flex
time,
so
we
can
flex
slightly
or
we
can
finish,
10
minutes
early,
it's
up
to
us
and
all
of
these
have
been
on
the
mailing
lists
and
all
of
these
have
slides
uploaded
as
well
on
the
data
tracker,
all
the
materials
available
on
the
session
so
take
a
look
and
yeah
all
the
links
are
in
the
minutes
as
well.
It's
on
hedge
dock.
A
A
C
C
Short
update,
but
just
bear
with
me
for
10
seconds
so
oops
I
hit
the
wrong
button
all
right.
So
what
is
what
is
brian's
update?
This
is
one
of
three
documents
that
cover
a
responsibility:
change
that
is
part
of
the
rfc
editor
future
development
program
process.
Now,
as
the
community
has
seen,
we've
spent
a
lot
of
time
trying
to
get
that
a
a
new
process
out
that
process
is
coming
to
conclusion.
C
We
had
our
working
group
last
call
or
the
equivalent
thereof
for
an
iav
program
this
past
these
past
two
weeks.
We
received
a
lot
of
comments,
but
I
think
the
document
is
in
generally
pretty
good,
pretty
good
shape,
we're
going
to
resolve
some
or
most
of
the
comments
in
the
in
the
the
latter
part
of
this
week
on
wednesday
just
to
go
through.
C
You
know
we
have
like
20
issues,
but
most
of
them
are
editorial,
but
a
bunch
of
places
what's
going
to
happen,
is
we're
going
to
form
this
new
working
group
called
called
the
rswg,
which
is
a
community
community-based
process,
and
an
appeals
chain
will
go
along
with
that
and
not
just
an
appeals
chain,
but
an
approval
chain
which
includes
a
group
called
the
rfc
series
approvals
body.
So
what
will
happen?
C
Is
the
rswg
will
create
policy
proposals
and
the
rsab
will
approve
those
proposals,
but
this
shifts
the
responsibility
of
the
rfc
editor
series
from
the
iab
to
this
new
organization,
at
least
that's
what's
proposed
and
so
that,
based
on
our
our
processes
in
the
ietf
and
elsewhere,
you
know
the
rfc
2026
says
the
iab
has
this
responsibility
and
there
are
a
couple
of
other
documents
like
2028
and
20
and
2850.
They
all
say
the
same
thing.
Some
of
them
are
bcps,
some
of
them
are
informational.
C
If,
if
lars
is
okay
with
that,
and
that
the
documents
should
be
approved
simultaneously
with
the
model,
if
the
model
doesn't
get
approved,
these
don't
need
to
get
approved.
At
this
point,
it
looks
like
the
model
will
get
approved,
but
the
community
gets
to
have
their
say
on
this
point
first,
so
so
that's
at
least
the
proposed
plan,
and
that's
all
I
would
want
to
comment
today,
questions
comments.
C
B
B
F
B
F
Okay,
so
during
the
rfc
editor
program,
a
bunch
of
disc
and
it's
showing
up
in
other
places
too,
but
a
bunch
of
people
were
saying.
Oh
you
know,
2028
is
really
really
out
of
date,
not
surprising
its
rfc
number.
Is
you
know
under
7000,
so
here's
some
I
figured
oh.
It
can't
be
too
hard
to
update
so
here's
some
changes
added
for
those
who
don't
haven't
read
it.
The
rfc
describes
the
individuals
and
the
organizations
that
are
responsible
that
are
involved
in
the
standard,
ietf
standards
process.
F
So
for
individuals
I
added
a
responsible
ad
and
I
reordered
it.
So
it
follows
a
typical
workflow.
You
know
authors
or
authors
or
editors
working
group,
responsible,
ad
iesg
organizations
added
the
llc
and
the
ietf
trust
reorganized.
It
reordered
that
a
little
bit
overall
there
were
some
wordsmithing
used
common
style
and
sentence
structures.
So,
like
every
paragraph
of
an
organization
ends
with
for
more
information,
go
see
someone's
object,
wordsmithing.
F
You
know
the
document
said
throughout
editor
or
editors.
Things
like
that.
Just
in
the
beginning,
we
just
say
we
use
singular
form,
got
great
feedback
from
the
individuals
mentioned
here
next
page
next
slide
to
do's.
I
need
to
add
an
acknowledgement
section
which
became
obvious
to
me
when
I
wrote
the
last
bullet
on
the
previous
slide.
F
A
H
A
Oh,
we
may
not
have
rich
anymore
okay,
so
anyone
got
any
views
kind
of.
Please
join
the
queue
or
pop
in
jabba.
What
you
think
should
happen
you
can
see.
Someone
said
this
could
be.
Another
ad
sponsor
target
seems
reasonable.
Would
anyone
like
to
join
the
queue
and
express
the
sentiments
or
put
something
in
jabber
to
indicate?
I
know
it
may
be
very
late
or
very
early
for
some
people
in
the
room,
but
hey
rich
you're
in
the
queue.
F
J
K
E
A
A
Okay,
not
seeing
any
disagreements
so
fabulous.
Thank
you
rich
for
your
presentation,
and
that
will
be
the
outcome.
We'll
summarize
all
of
this
at
the
end
of
course,
but
with
that
we
can
move
straight
on
to
our
next
item,
which
is
modifications
to
the
nom-com
process,
and
it's
very,
I
think,
talking
to
these
slides
as
it's
only
two
slides
I'll.
Just
I'm
happy
to
drive
as
well.
L
Okay,
hi,
yes,
please
drive
the
slides
next
slide,
and
this
is
the
only
slide.
So
this
got
started
when
rich
proposed
that
we
discuss
a
draft
that
specified
a
gap
year,
basically
that
the
nom-com
can
appoint
someone
to
various
positions
for
up
to
two
terms
and
after
two
terms
that
person
has
to
take
a
year
off
before
getting
appointed
to
another
nom-com
appointed
term.
L
Some
of
us,
including
me,
felt
that
that
hard
limits
like
that
were
reducing
flexibility
on
the
nom-com
too
much,
and
so
after
some
discussion,
I
proposed
an
alternative
approach
which
says
that
two
terms
should
be
considered
the
normal
maximum,
but
they
can.
The
nomcom
can
do
the
right
thing
and
a
point
for
longer
terms
if
possible,
and
also
allowing
a
specific
exception
for
the
ietf
chair
role,
where
we
expect
people
to
move
into
the
iaf
ietf
chair
role
directly
from
other
bodies,
frequently,
as
has
frequently
happened.
L
That
again,
two
two
terms
is
the
norm,
but
also
specifying
a
different
way
of
handling
incumbents,
where
you
process
incumbents,
where
the
nomcom
processes
incumbents
first
decides
whether
to
reappoint
the
incumbents
before
soliciting
other
people
to
put
their
names
in
for
that
role.
So
we
have
these
three
drafts
that
are
different
and
the
slide
says
can't
be
reconciled,
but
really
in
discussion
of
this,
it
seems
like
there
are
more
similarities
and
differences.
L
Basically,
all
three
of
them
are
saying
that
the
norm
should
be
that
you
serve
two
terms
in
various
in
one
or
various
positions
and
then
go
back
to
the
community
for
a
while
before
coming
back
into
the
iab,
the
iesg.
At
the
moment,
the
drafts
are
not
talking
about
the
llc
or
the
ietf
trust,
and
we
we
will.
We
can
get
into
that
later
after
we
dispatch
these.
L
C
C
L
C
I'll,
let
me
just
finish
up
by
saying
I
guess
I'm
okay
with
that
sort
of
a
direction
right,
but
if
the
language
has
to
be
couched
very
gently
barry
because
I'm
just
very
I
I
think
we
could
put
off
a
non.
We
could
force
a
nom
com
to
make
a
bad
decision
as
easily
as
we
could
force
them
to
make
a
good
one.
M
M
I
think
we
should
really
focus
on
isg
is
where
the
heart
problem
is
here,
and
do
that
one
first
and
independently
from
the
rest,
to
figure
out
what
we
want
on
there.
I
think
above
is
a
reasonable
suggestion
and
perhaps
one
that
tried
to
actually
come
to
a
resolution
of
the
problem,
not
a
buff,
to
form
a
working
group,
but
maybe
off
to
sort
of
you
know
see
if
we
can
come
to
some
group
consensus
on
this
now.
I
actually.
M
I
think
that
our
current
system
is
highly
in
favors
the
encumbrance
and
I
think
all
the
people
speaking
to
nom-com
doesn't
have
enough
choices.
Part
of
the
reason
nom-com
doesn't
have
enough
choices
is
because
we
keep
doing
things
that
favor
the
people
that
are
currently
there.
It
makes
it
really
hard
to
set
an
expectation
of
growing
new
talent
and
we
need
to
set
an
expectation
of
growing
new
talent.
We've
been
trying
this
advice,
this
advice
that
we
have
right
now,
we've
been
trying
it
for
years.
M
It
isn't
working,
so
I
actually
think
that
we
very
much
should
go
to
to
term
limit
or
something
like
that.
It
sounds
very
reasonable
for
isg
and
I
actually
think
that
will
improve
the
choices.
Nom-Com
has,
I
think,
giving
sort
of
the
vague
fluffy
advice
we've
been
giving
to
namcom
for
years
is
just
not.
M
N
So
I
got
in
the
queue
to
say
what
I
think
is
almost
the
opposite
of
what
colin
just
said.
So
I'm
digesting
some
of
of
of
cohen's
comments
to
pull
out
that
perhaps
if
there
is
work
to
dispatch
here,
it
is
not
work
to
build
a
document
that
is
a
set
of
guidance
to
nom
com.
It
is
work
that
is
the
community
trying
to
discuss
mechanics
for
changing
the
way
the
potential
leadership
pool
is
built.
N
So
I
will
close
again
returning
to
my
attempt
to
pull
out
of
what
I
was
hearing
cohen,
say
in
is
that
there
may
be
work
here
to
do,
but
it
isn't
writing
text
for
a
nom-com.
It
is
actually
thinking
about
engineering
the
re-engineering
the
way
we
build
the
inputs
to
what
an
omcom
looks
at
mechanism
for
doing
that.
You
think.
N
L
I
I'd
like
to
respond
to
I'd
like
to
respond
to
robert
on
one
point
that
I,
I
think
that
if
I
think
there's
value
in
having
a
community
consensus
on
that
guidance
as
opposed
to
a
bunch
of
individual
opinions
on
the
guidance
that
go
to
nom-com
each
time,
it
avoids
the
issue.
Having
the
consensus
avoids
the
issue
that
the
nom-com
has
to
decide
whether
there
are
a
bunch
of
vocal
people
who
are
telling
them
what
they,
what
they
should
be
doing.
N
So
it's
we've
been
thrashing
on
the
list
and
your
slide
points
to
the
the
the
content
of
the
thresh
and-
and
I
guess
my
position
on
this-
is
that
there
that
the
it's
a
natural
consequence
of
the
problem
of
the
guidance
suggestion
that
we're
trying
to
give
and
that.
I
think
that,
if
we
went
through
the
effort
to
build
a
new
set
of
guidance
to
nom-coms
in
text
form,
we
would
immediately
start
rehashing.
It.
H
H
I
I
Doing
nothing
but
we're
clearly
not
going
to
solve
the
problem
today,
because
this
is
is,
is
more
complicated
and
and,
for
example,
colin
made
the
comment
that
that
transfers
from
the
isg
to
the
iab
immediately
are
okay,
and
I
think
I
have
seen
that
work
out
sufficiently
badly.
That
I'd
like
the
downcom
to
be
warned
by
consensus,
as
barry
points
out
rather
than
a
few
loud
voices
in
both
directions
that
that
often
hasn't
worked
out
should
be
looked
at
carefully.
I
I'm
there
are
people
who
I
am
perfectly
happy
having
third
terms,
but
they
are
people
who
I
have
exceptional
trust
in
their
ability
to
figure
out
when
they
need
to
stop,
and
it
is
quite
commonly
into
the
case
that
people
have
not
been
able
to
figure
out
how
to
stop
where
to
stop.
Unlike
the
original
version
of
barry's
proposal,
I
don't
in
spite
of
having
been
one.
I
don't
believe
that
moving
people
from
the
isg
to
the
iap
without
a
break
is
a
particularly
good
idea.
I
There
may
be
exceptions,
and-
and
I
don't
think,
moving
people
around
within
the
isg
without
a
break
is
a
particularly
good
idea.
Although
there
may
be
exceptions
and
as
far
as
the
argument
that
we
don't
have
enough
candidates
is
concerned,
I
my
crystal
ball
is
certainly
no
better
than
anybody
else's
or
maybe
worse.
I
So
this
this
is
a
complex
and
nuanced
problem,
and
I
think
we
at
least
need
the
the
benefits
of
extended
discussion
and,
if
we're
willing
to
open
the
can
of
worms
and
won't
boil
those
in
the
process.
I
agree
with
lucy
looking
at
the
whole
process
of
knowing
what
went
into
it,
especially
because
number
of
assumptions
that
have
seriously
changed
since
we
set
that
process
in
motion
an
internet
century
ago
would
be
a
good
idea.
B
B
H
B
H
I
The
cadillac,
which
discusses
this
only
and
concludes
whether
there
should
be
a
working
group,
an
ad
sponsored
document
out
of
some
very
rough
consensus
above
or
something
else
like
throwing
it
all
away.
That
becomes
a
different
kind
of
question
now
because,
because,
like
lucy,
I
favor
opening
the
big
problem.
I
G
I
do
want
to
push
back,
though,
on
one
little
thing
I
heard,
which
was
the
suggestion
that
if
we
give
this
guidance
to
nomcom,
they
need
to
explain
why
they
would
diverge
from
it.
I
do
not
want
to
see
us
imposing
a
requirement
that
namcoms
have
to
explain
themselves
to
the
community,
because
it
could
implicate
interesting
things
about
the
feedback
they've
gotten.
G
L
P
There
you
are
so
yeah,
I
think
it's
something
that
we
need
to
think
about.
I
don't
think
that
now
is
the
right
time
to
be
making
a
change,
though,
because
it's
quite
realistically
going
to
be
four
years
from
the
last
face-to-face
itf
to
the
next
one
and
I'm
serious.
I
don't
think
that
we're
going
to
be
meeting
next
year.
P
I
think
it's
unlikely
and
it's
not
certain
we're
going
to
meet
the
year
after
that.
So
in
terms
of
institutional
continuity,
if
you
have
a
situation
where
every
single
person
on
the
isg
and
the
iab
has
no
experience
of
running
the
itf
in
its
normal
mode,
that's
quite
a
big
institutional
shock,
you're
throwing
at
it,
and
so
in
these
very
specific
circumstances,
I
think
you
need
to
think
very
hard
about
whether
this
is
the
right
time
to
make
that
change.
B
B
R
Hi
there,
so
I
just
want
to
brief
comment:
I'm
very
much
opposed
to
a
hard
term
limits.
I've
been
a
number
of
nom-coms
and
the
namcom
needs
to
be
able
to
do
what
it
needs
to
do
to
fill
the
the
necessary
leadership
positions.
But
I
certainly
understand
people
who
believe
that
soft
admonitions
are
unlikely
to
be
very
effective,
and
I
just
wanted
to
point
out.
There
are
intermediate
things
that
can
be
done.
R
One
would
just
be,
for
example,
when
the
nom-com
is
listing
the
candidates
and
so
forth,
clearly
labeled
incumbents
until
maybe
label
how
many
terms
they've
served.
How
incumbent
are
they
and
maybe
even
have
a
little
note
with
that,
pointing
out
that,
if
somebody's
been
encumbered
for
a
while,
it's
even
more
likely
that
that
somebody
will
replace
them,
and
you
should
consider
volunteering
for
that.
R
B
Q
So
if
there
is
to
be
a
buff,
I
really
think
it
needs
to
focus
on
that,
rather
than
term
limits,
which
feels
like
that.
That's
addressing
a
symptom
and
not
not
the
underlying
cause
so
far,
rather
sort
of
get
get
at
the
real
problem,
not
just
sort
of
go
after
they
feel
like
the
easy
bit,
which
is
just
the
sort
of
cosmetic
term
limits
thing.
S
At
the
same
time,
with
the
number
of
issues
that
are
being
raised,
I
have
to
agree
that
I
think
that
either
a
buff
which
leads
to
a
working
group
or
even
straight
to
a
working
group
is
definitely
a
valid
idea,
because
I
think
that
there
are
a
lot
of
issues
here
and
I
think
that
we
could
clarify
a
number
of
things
so
yeah.
I
would
definitely
support
either
going
from
above
to
a
working
group
or
straight
into
a
working
group,
whichever
is
actually
fastest
and
will
lead
to
the
least
blockage.
B
Yes,
we're
on
board
with
getting
a
working
group
to
work
on
those
things,
or
maybe
an
ad
sponsored
document
and
then
go
on
to
the
question
of
the
this
particular
topic.
Whether
that's
term
limits
some
softened
version
of
that
or
the
the
pipeline
as
the
bigger
buff
topic
barry.
Did
you
want
to
speak
to
that.
L
T
Bring
up
you
know
some
some
points
that
you
know
for
me
being
on
nomcom
this
year.
We're
kind
of
kind
of
lacking
right.
So
one
is
that
I
do
especially
for
isg.
You
know
always
like
to
see
you
know
how
good
somebody
is
is
is
doing
reviews
right
in
terms
of
okay.
You
know
that's
a
big
part
of
the
job
right,
so
the
the
tooling
to
figure
out
what
reviews
somebody
has
done
or
so
are
lacking
right.
So
you
need
to
go
to
the
different
working
groups,
search
through
all
that
stuff
right.
T
So
if
we
had
reviews
from
non-isg
member-
or
you
know,
reviews
from
anybody
better
in
tooling,
you
know
that
review
of
you
know
past.
You
know
contribution
to
that.
Important
part
of
the
isg
job
would
be
much
easier
to
vet
for
nomcom,
so
that
that
goes
to
the
core
of
the
job,
responsibility
and-
and
that
would
be
my
kind
of
main
point
that
I
think
hasn't
been
mentioned.
E
E
So
if
there
are
some
things-
and
I
think
lucy
gave
some
examples
that
are
sort
of
quote-unquote
no-brainers
and
we
should
just
do
them
right,
I
would
at
least
want
to
see
them
written
down
in
some
form
that
that
we
can
agree
what
if
this
is
a
no-brainer
or
it
requires
above
or
not
right.
If
there's
other
non-comp
related
topics,
that
would
sort
of
you
know
make
sense
to
do
like
the
ones
that
that
barry
has
presented
and
richard
and
john
have
written
down.
E
You
know
people
can
propose
a
buff
that
would
sort
of
maybe,
as
one
work
item
work
on
the
sort
of
no-brainer
things
that
lucy
talked
about,
but
also
you
know,
suggest
other
work
items
like
like
this
right
or
something
along
those
lines
and
and
then
we
can
have
a
buff
and
see
what
happens.
I
think
it's
pretty
unlikely
that
we're
gonna,
so
let
me
rephrase
that
I
think
I'm
uncomfortable
with
doing
homecom
specific
changes
unless
they're
like
really
really
simple
and
really
really
urgent.
E
As
ad
sponsored
documents,
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
broad
discussion
on
them,
and
so
above
is
is
the
best
way
for
that.
If
they're
simple,
if
after
we
get
above
proposal,
we
we
say
this
is
so
clearly,
you
know
a
waste
of
time
to
hold
above.
Let's
go
straight
to
working
group,
that's
certainly
an
option,
but
I
think
sort
of
the
targeting
above
seems
to
be
the
right.
The
right
thing
to
do.
B
E
B
And
but,
and
my
sense
is
and
kirsty-
and
I
are
talking
in
the
background
jabbering-
it
sounds
like
we
have
two
things
to
do
here:
one
is
to
get
written
up
the
the
no
brainers
list
as
you've
been
calling
it.
I
I
like
that
see
if
that
can
go
straight
to
chartering
for
a
working
group
or
what
to
be
done
there
and
then
or
that
it
requires
more
buffing,
and
we
do
that
and
then
separately
this
set
of
topics.
B
B
A
W
V
There
are
a
few
more
slides
in
this
one
than
in
the
previous
ones,
because,
given
that
there
was
some
discussion
of
this
before
and
that
we've
made
major
changes,
I
wanted
to
actually
cover
the
significant
content
in
this,
as
well
as
make
clear
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
so
first.
This
is
a
draft
that
if
we
turn
it
into
an
rfc,
the
goal
is
that
it
be
part
of
the
note.
Well.
V
V
So
we
want
to
help
make
sure
people
know
that
it
helps
making
sure
people
know
it
helps
a
whole
lot
in
a
lot
of
ways
and
just
telling
people
just
follow
the
law.
Well,
I
at
least
find
that
utterly
useless
advice.
So
I
wanted
something
more
useful,
as
I
said
proposed
to
the
bcp,
that's
just
whatever
it
takes
now,
even
before
brian
sent
his
note,
I
did
realize
that
one
of
the
key
questions
was.
Do
we
need
this?
V
We
say
that
people
participate
here
as
individuals,
but
people
are
also
here
on
behalf
of
their
companies.
It's
not
an
either
or
no.
There
are
some
people
who
are
really
just
here
as
individuals,
great
wonderful,
but
for
the
rest
of
us
it
ain't
true,
I
mean,
after
all,
we
recognize
that
people's
association
affiliation
matters
in
all
sorts
of
detailed
ways,
so
the
company
companies
do
impact.
This
antitrust
does
affect
us.
It
could
make
a
big
difference
so
telling
people
things
they
need
to
know
that
are
widely
understood
and
accepted
to
be
important.
V
Things
to
avoid
is
really
important.
I
actually
think
that
even
the
harder
cases
will
be
helpful
to
us
mike
we'll
get
back
to
it,
but
getting
some
discussion
of
what
the
community
considers
the
right
things
would
be
really
helpful
here.
I'm
not
saying
this
is
what
I
want.
I
want
the
community's
agreement
on
what
these
guidelines
are,
so
the
goals
are,
as
I
stated,
referenced
by
notewell.
V
The
shorter
term
is
to
get
agreement
on
discussing
that.
The
immediate
goal,
therefore,
is
I'm
going
to
tell
you
what
I've
done
in
the
document,
and
then
we
can
discuss
how
the
heck
do
we
dispatch
it,
because
I,
as
you'll,
see
on
my
last
slide,
there's
nothing
that
quite
seems
to
make
sense,
but
we
need
to
do
something
trying
to
do
this
without
community
discussion
is
not
suitable.
I
I
maybe
I
should
have
said,
keep
going
okay,
it's
I'm
certainly
strongly
in
favor
of
doing
this
and,
as
you
know,
but
many
people
listening
may
not.
I
I've
been
saying
that
for
20
years,
because
I
got
involved
in
some
of
those
things
with
other
standards
bodies-
and
I
know
how
painful
know
firsthand
how
painful
it
can
get
at
the
same
time,
the
the
description
of
the
can
of
worms
which
is
getting
opened
here.
V
Okay,
so
I'll
now
go
through
the
changes,
because
we
brought
this
forward
and
there
were
discussions
and
we
did
notice
the
discussions
and
then
the
co-authors
had
more
discussions
and
we
rewrote
section
five
I
mean
when
I
wrote
the
diff.
It
basically
says
section:
five
is
completely
different,
so
we
did
and
we
got
some
legal
input.
We
found
some
older
legal
input.
We've
we've
tried
to
collect
the
inputs.
V
The
first
thing
is
we
renamed
because
of
the
feedback
section
5
from
recommended
behavior
to
additional
guidelines,
it's
all
guidelines,
and
then
we
had
to
reword
the
start
of
section
5
to
match
that
the
text
still
needs
work.
There
are
all
sorts
of
interesting
corner
cases
that
are
not
fully
handled.
V
V
Just
discusses
the
fact
that
standardization
should
not
be
a
tool
to
suppress
competition
that
covers
a
nu
and
then
we
go
through
a
whole
bunch
of
different
aspects
of
that
tries
to
recognize.
We
do
have
one
of
the
changes
we
did
was
try
to
recognize
that
there
are
nuances
in
all
of
this.
So
at
the
end,
there's
even
a
note
that
people
using
standards
to
make
choices
is
okay.
Sorry,
that's
a
different
point
that
discussing
the
aspect
of
whether
folks
will
use
the
standard
is
an
important
discussion.
V
5.2
is
exchange
of
competitive
information.
This
is
what
people
classically
think
of
as
antitrust
it
turns
out.
There
are
multiple
clauses
in
the
antitrust
and
competition
laws,
and
the
question
brian
raised
a
question
of
the
exact
title
of
the
document,
I'll
I'll
leave
that
for
discussion
and
check
with
lawyers
who
deal
with
international
law,
because
I
don't
know
what
the
international
terms
are.
We
can
fix
the
title.
That's
not
a
big
deal,
but
in
exchanges
of
competitive
information
are
an
important
category
of
informa
of
issues.
V
Here
we
list
nine
different
items
and
then
we
tried
to
put
in
caveats
things
like
well,
if
it's
already
public,
obviously
you
could
talk
about
it.
We
need.
We
do
recognize
in
the
text
that
there
are
some
times
when
costs
are
an
important
aspect
of
evaluating
whether
something
is
reasonable
to
standardize
and
yet
discussing
what
the
actual
cost
is
to
manufacture.
Things
is
a
big
no-no.
So
how
do
we
balance
that
precisely
we've
suggested
a
set
of
guidelines?
V
5.3
is
a
section
about
market
requirements,
and
basically
this
is
the
lawyers
told
me
this
turns
out
to
be
an
area
that
matters.
If
you
do
this,
you
can
be
seen
as
as
trying
to
collude
to
influence
the
market,
and
yet
we
do
need
to
know
what
people
want
and
what
the
market
wants.
So
my
guess
is
this
is
one
that
is
probably
needs
more
wordsmithing
than
the
others,
but
it
is
actually
an
important
per
dimension
of
antitrust
and
anti-competitive
behavior.
That
needs
to
be
dealt
with.
V
5.4,
I've
simply
quoted
here
what
we
put
in,
but
people
who
are
from
a
company
that
that
is
seen
to
have
a
dominant
market
position.
It
doesn't
matter
whether
it's
really
dominant
doesn't
matter
whether
it
thinks
it's
dominant.
But
if
it's
seen
by
others
to
have
a
dominant
position
which
to
me
means
just
be
careful,
no
matter
who
you're
from
because
you
never
know
how
people
will
see.
You
need
to
be
very
careful
about
using
the
authority.
We
give
them
to
lead
things
for
corporate
goals.
Yeah.
We
have
things
that
say.
V
I
know
of
plenty
of
cases
and
I'm
sure
many
of
you
do
too,
where
people
sure
seem
to
be
working
for
other
goals,
and
we
need
to
make
clear
to
folks
both
to
protect
them,
to
protect
the
rest
of
us
in
the
room
and
to
protect
the
community
as
a
whole,
the
ietf
and
even
isak
that
you
can't
do
that.
Now
we
can.
V
V
V
John's
point
was
to
just
point
to
this
in
the
note:
well
not
to
try
to
put
all
of
this
into
the
note.
Well,
we
can't
there's
too
much,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
point,
but
my
suggestion
would
be.
We
write
the
document
which
is
relatively
short
but
sure
not
short
enough
to
fit
on
one
slide
and
then
we
add
a
pay
attention
to
antitrust
issues.
Cbcp,
7
or
c
informational,
rfc
9765.
A
Thank
you
thanks,
joel
for
your
presentation
for
bringing
this
so
just
a
reminder
to
add
yourself
to
the
queue
just
click
the
hand.
Next,
to
your
name
and
as
a
refresh
of
the
original
slides
that
we
showed
about
noting
things
really
well
do
be
considerate
off
the
dispatch
question:
we're
not
trying
to
work
out
the
exact
wording
or
anything
here
we
are
just
trying
to
find
the
best
avenue
or
the
best
route
forward
for
this
work.
C
C
Okay,
the
idf
has
tackled
documents
like
this
before
you
know
our
ipr
documents.
You
know
this.
This
is
a
similar
sort
of
situation.
You
know
when
we,
when
we've
done
the
ipr
documents,
usually
the
lawyers
come
into
the
room
and
help
they
help
word
smith.
I
would
expect
much
the
same
here
if
we
create
a
venue
that
the
the
lawyers
would
show
up
from
various
companies
to
make
sure
that
their
employees
aren't
put
in
a
in
any
sort
of
conflict
in
terms
of
participating
in
terms
of
participation
in.
C
This
coming
up
here
and
actually
in
reaction
to
the
announcement,
I
actually
had
our
our
legal
people
reviewed
and
basically
said
it
was
motherhood
and
apple
pie.
So
I
didn't
really
have
a
particular
grand
concern,
my
suggestion
as
to
what
to
do
with
it.
This
is
a
pretty
focused
effort
that
we're
talking
about
in
in
times
when
we
were
meeting,
I
would
say
this
is
not
one
of
those
where
you
really
need
to
get
people
too
too
often
into
a
room.
C
K
C
X
X
So
I
I
guess,
I'm
just
I'm
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
this.
If,
like
like
elliott,
said
as
it
currently
sits,
it's
it's
largely
motherhood
and
apple
pie.
It's
all
largely
focused
on
you
know,
understood
competition
law
issues
instead
of
studies
around
cartel,
behavior
and
and
patents,
but
all
the
all
the
discussions
these
days
are
about
new
forms
of
abuse
which
haven't
really
seen
their
way
through
the
system
yet
and
aren't
really
defined.
So
I
I'm
a
little
concerned
that
we
open
this
thing
up
to
a
working
group.
X
Actually,
I'm
really
concerned
that
if
we
open
this
up
to
a
working
group,
we're
going
to
end
up
with
a
document
that
has
no
real
bearing
on
reality
when
it
comes
to
court
and
participants
are
going
to
feel
you
know
misled
by
it.
So
from
for
this
patch
question,
I
I
think
we
need
a
different
document.
X
I
think
we
need
something
much
more
about
what
protects
the
itf
from
nona
anti-trust
or
competition
law
prosecution,
and
if
we
do
have
a
group
work
on
it,
it
probably
needs
to
be
sponsored
and
get
a
few
lawyers
in
to
talk
about
it.
But
having
this
community
come
up
with
what
it
thinks
is.
The
right
thing
is
just
spells
disaster
to
me.
V
Okay,
I
I
missed.
I,
I
missed
a
connection
between
parts
of
what
you
said.
I
understand
your
perspective
and
that's
we're
here
to
listen
to
that,
but
and
the
the
point
was.
We
were
picking
things
that
were
generally
applicable
not
trying
to
deal
with
cutting-edge
things
that
some
people
some
jurisdictions
may
be
introducing
to
further
complicate
it.
We're
not
claiming
this
is
comprehensive.
V
God
help
us,
I
we
can't
be
comprehensive,
but
you
may
be
un
overestimating
under
a
three
I'm,
not
sure
which
way
an
awful
lot
of
people
don't
even
realize
the
basics,
which
is
why
I
felt
it
was
very
helpful
to
call
this
out
and
from
what
I've
been
told.
Having
a
statement
from
the
body
that
says
these
are
the
things
we
expect,
even
if
we're
not
making
rules
about
them
does
make
a
big
difference
in
the
way
it
is
seen
by
multiple
enforcement
authorities
around
the
world.
V
It's
part
of
why
I'm
trying
to
do
this
because
it
does
affect
help
protect
the
body,
not
just
the
individuals,
but
just
thought.
I
should
try
to
clarify
that,
because
I
was
you
seem
to
be
both
saying
it's
too
general
and
too
specific
I
mean
a
working
group
can
go
off
the
rails,
but
that's
a
different
problem.
A
S
S
Because,
as
I
said,
there
are
aspects
of
this
where
things
are
different
from
country
to
country,
and
there
are
also
aspects
of
this
that
could
fairly
negatively
impact
people
if
done
incorrectly,
because
even
while
they
are
stated
as
guidelines,
I've
seen
guidelines
be
used
in
contesting
everything
from
actions
taken
by
private
companies
to
rfps
being
overturned.
To
goodness
knows
what-
and
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
be
careful-
we
need
the
document,
but
we
need
it
with
wide
input
to
consider
all
the
perspectives
and
make
sure
we're
going
in
the
right
direction.
Z
Is
good?
Yes,
so
for
the
folks
who
don't
know
me,
I
am
part
of
the
legal
team
that
serves
as
legal
counsel
to
ietf
llc
and
to
the
bodies
that
sit
under
that
legal
framework
and
then
also
to
the
ietf
trust,
and
I
I
know
there
have
been
a
bunch
of
questions
have
been
raised.
I
I'm
not
even
sure
if
I
have
them
all
kind
of
queued
up
in
my
mind
to
to
to
address
specifically,
but
maybe
a
little
bit
of
background.
That
might
be
helpful.
Z
I
think
that's
a
completely
legitimate
discussion
and
I
can
see
the
argument
for
that
that
there's
usefulness
to
that
approach,
I
think
purely
from
my
legal
perspective.
You
know
I
look
at
this
from
there's
a
department
of
justice
document
that
talks
about
antitrust
compliance
programs,
not
just
antitrust
policies
but
antitrust
compliance
programs,
and-
and
that
really
is
the
framework
that
I
think
of
when
I'm
my
my
firm.
We
we
support
a
number
of
different
standards,
organizations
and,
and-
and
generally
we
think
of
this-
as
what
is
our
antitrust
compliance
program.
Z
Z
So
that's
the
sort
of
narrow
approach
here,
as,
as
I
mentioned,
I
do
think,
there's
some
utility
in
giving
people
more
specific,
behavioral
guidelines.
I
do
they
think
there
is
some
trickiness
with
you
know,
behavioral
guidelines
in
terms
of
international.
You
know
international
laws
being
potentially
different
and
so
forth.
I
don't
think
they're
so
different
that
we-
we
can't
do
this.
You
know,
so
I
think
the
stuff
that
will
work
in
in
you
know
the
maps
to
us
law
maps.
Z
You
know
generally
equally
well
to
you
know
the
laws
of
other
major
jurisdictions.
So
I
think
I
think
we
could
successfully.
You
know
find
a
set
of
criteria
that
would
would
work
to
to
you
know,
lay
out
kind
of
you
know
relatively
generic,
but
specific
enough
guidelines
that
it
hopefully
gets
to
the
point
that
joel
has
that
we
should
really
be
more
specific
about
what
we
communicate
to
to
our
participants.
T
So
you
know
maybe
maybe
before
getting
to
a
point
of
deciding
you
know
what
venue
to
actually
use.
Is
you
know
what
are
about
these
conflicting
goals,
protecting
the
organization
and
as
a
separate
goal?
Educating
the
participants
and
the
second
one
is
for
each
of
these
goals.
What
quark
do
we
need
right?
T
So
I,
for
example,
think
that
in
many
of
these
gen
area,
things,
the
typical
working
group
or
id
sponsored
a
quorum
that
we
get
with
the
rough
consensus
in
the
end,
isn't
necessarily
wide
enough,
and
so
I
do
very
much
like
the
llc's
approaches
to
create
targeted
questionnaires,
and
so
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
certainly
want
to
have
is
a
feedback
from
people
who
you
know,
for
example,
can
acclaim
to
having
talked
to
their
lawyers
and
gotten
their
feedback
and
take
that
into
account
in
this
case.
Thank
you.
T
For
the
discussion,
let's
first
figure
out
right,
you
know:
can
we
get
the
goals
of
protecting
the
organization
and
giving
guidance
to
the
participants,
ideally
into
a
single
document,
or
should
that
be
two
documents,
even
if
they
may
not
be
all
that
different
right?
But
I
think
those
are
the
two
goals
that
we
have
not
only
educate
the
participants,
as
the
abstract
of
the
document
now
says
right,
but
also
to
protect
the
organization
so
and,
and
then
the
second
one
is.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
clarifying
yeah,
so
I'm
hearing
from
the
discussion
so
far
a
few
people
came
from
sort
of
an
a.d
sponsored
paying
the
lawyers
asking
the
llc
to
do
it
and
kind
of
the
lawyers
and
the
experts
doing
it
and
then
also
a
need
for
community
consensus
and
sort
of
endorsement
or
agreement
in
some
form.
And
so
that's
what
you're
sort
of
saying
to
have
like
a
something
prepared
and
then
a
forum
to
kind
of
agree.
T
B
B
Z
Z
B
I
hear
the
point
and
the
question
it
really
is:
is
it
necessary
to
put
it
in
the
terms
of
must
comply,
or
is
it
sufficient
to
protect
the
organization
to
say
are
expected
to
that?
It
is
the
responsibility
of
the
participants,
not
the
responsibility
of
the
organization,
to
police,
all
participant
activities,
which
is
why
I'm
worried
about
policy.
Z
Yeah,
this
is
a
pretty
nuanced
point
and
maybe
maybe
it's
worth
just
queuing
it
up
for
for
further
discussion,
whatever
forum
we
we
end
up.
Taking
this,
I
I
mean
my
my
quick
answer
would
be,
I
think
are
expected
to
could
could
be
sufficient
for
the
purposes
of
of
you
know
if
we
ever
had
that
moment
where
some
antitrust
investigator
was
raising
concerns
with
activity
in
the
itf,
and
we
could
pull
out
this
document.
That's
that
says,
look
we
we
you
know,
are
we
but.
Z
I
think
that
could
be
good
enough.
I
I,
but
I
it
was.
It
was
just
purely
me
making
a
decision
in
the
abstract
and
without
itf
history
in
context,
I'd
say:
oh
I
like
the
musts.
I
I
think
our
policy
should.
I
mean
from
from
the
perspective
of
looking
it
through
that
filter.
I
think
something
that
says
we
we
ietf
participants
must
comply
with.
The
law
is,
is
the
right
substantive
idea.
B
Okay,
we'll
we'll
talk
more
about
that.
The
other
point
that
I
wanted
to
bring
up
is
a
lot
of
people
are
talking
about
bringing
other
attorneys
from
their
own
companies
into
this
discussion,
and
that
is
somehow
important.
That
seems
like
a
horrible
idea,
because
what
those
attorneys
want
to
do
is
limit
their
own
liability
by
upping
the
ietf's
liability,
and
what
we
want
to
do
is
do
things
that
are
in
the
ietf's
interest,
not
in
the
companies
that
are
sending
participants.
B
Z
Yeah,
I
mean
there's,
certainly
the
point
that
like
so
I
or
you
know
other
folks
on
the
team.
You
know
we
are
counsel
to
you,
know
itf
llc
and
the
bodies
underneath
the
llc
and
that
so
we
have
you
know
our
our
fiduciary
type.
Duties
are
to
the
the
you
know
to
the
llc
and
the
itf
and
and
other
lawyers
who
participate
they
have
similar.
You
know
duties
to
their
own
clients
and
not
to
us,
and
so
so
yes,
that's
absolutely
true.
Z
I'm
not.
I
think,
I'm
not
as
troubled
by
the
idea
as
what
you've
articulated
in
the
sense
of
I
mean
there
are
deep
experts
in
you
know:
antitrusts
particularly
trust
related
to
standards
in
these
different
companies.
I
think
frame
the
right
way
that
they
are
providing
inputs
and
suggestions,
but
are
not
you
know
the
decision
makers
about
to
you,
know,
sort
of
or
and
aren't
providing
legal
advice
to
the
ietf.
Z
Z
A
Thank
you
brad,
I'm
just
noting
that
there's
quite
a
lot
of
pushback
in
jabber
disagreeing
with
pete
about
bringing
in
lawyers
from
their
own
companies,
and
you
can't
prevent
lawyers
from
coming
to
the
discussions.
Even
if
you,
even
if
you
wanted
to
pete,
can
I
just
check
your
dispatch
recommendation
before
we
move
down
the
queue
without
the
chair
hat
on.
B
It
would
be
something
to
say:
I
think
that
we
can
continue
with
a
buff
on
this.
I
think
going
straight
to
working
group
is
a
mistake,
because
I
still
think
we
have
to
establish
what
we
are
planning
to
work
on
here,
whether
it
is
a
set
of
guidelines
or
whether
it
is
literally
a
policy,
and
it
sounds
like
people
are
waffling
on
what
that
is.
D
Hey
thanks,
so
I
am
going
to
agree
with
the
distinction
that
torrelis
made.
I
thought
that
was
quite
useful.
I
think
it
sounds
like
there's
two
motivations
here.
One
is
to
protect
the
ietf
as
an
organization
from
potential
liability,
and
the
other
one
is
to
educate
participants
about
how
their
behavior
interacts
with
antitrust
and
competition
law
and
those,
I
think,
seem
like
they
weren't
different
approaches.
So
I
thought
the
call
out
to
the
w3c
statement
was
very
useful
and
and
very
much.
D
You
know,
aligned
to
what
brad
was
talking
about
in
terms
of
like
these
simple
statements
that
sdos
make.
If
it
seems
like
we
need
one
of
those
in
the
ietf,
because
antitrust
authorities
are
getting
more
interested
in
standards,
development
organizations,
then
that
seems
like
something
that
the
llc
could
take
care
of.
You
know
short
policy.
D
D
Last
time
it
was
discussed,
was
that
there
should
be
more
like
training
for
participants,
and
I
posted
a
link
to
the
slides
that
the
ietf
council
at
the
time
george
contreras,
had
done
for
that
both
and
to
me,
that's,
maybe
a
more
interesting
avenue
than
an
rfc
whereby
you
know
brad
could
put
together
some
some
slides
and
and
present
them
and
really
have
it,
be.
You
know
not
even
lowercase
normative,
but
just
explaining
to
people
what
the
landscape
is.
D
What
the
types
of
things
are,
that
you
know
behaviors
and
other
situations
that
have
have
caused
problems
and
leave
it
at
that.
If
there's
really
a
need
for
for
people
to
get
better
educated
about
the
landscape
out
there,
but
I
think
the
ietf
you
know
the
document
says
it
isn't
giving
legal
advice.
But
then
it
like
goes
through
a
whole.
Bunch
of
you
know,
lowercase
normative
statements
about
about
what
should
happen.
V
J
A
AB
Because
the
standards
bodies
council,
is
not
your
council
and
yeah.
So
I
would,
I
think,
echo
what
alyssa
suggested
that
the
llc
offer
some
guidance
and
the
participants
who
have
questions
or
comments
for
that
should
give
input
there
on
how
it's
serving
their
needs,
as
well
as
some
general
educational
material
to
to
help.
People
in
general
understand
good
conduct.
A
AA
AA
I
think
alyssa's
proposal
that
we
kind
of
treat
this
policy
as
the
other
policies
the
llc
has
developed,
is
kind
of
the
right
procedural
approach
for
the
policy
half
of
this
so
kind
of
using
that
policy,
development
mechanism
and
the
community
feedback
mechanism
as
the
vector
to
pete's
point
about
involving
other
companies
lawyers.
I
think
that
I,
I
am
pretty
much
all
the
way
on
the
other
side
of
the
issue
from
pete.
AA
I
think
this
is
a
domain
where
it
would
be
useful
for
the
llc's
council
to
be
engaging
with
the
councils
from
other
organizations
who
participate
so
that
those
organizations
yeah
as
jay
said
in
the
chat
like
their
those
organizations.
Antitrust
fosters
are
intertwined
with
the
ietf's
antitrust
posture,
and
so
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
have
those
discussions,
obviously
with
the
ietf
and
their
council,
as
kind
of
the
lead
in
that
discussion
and,
ultimately,
the
producer
of
the
output.
AA
But
I
think
we
should
absolutely
have
those
discussions
kind
of
counsel
to
council
on
the
guidelines
front.
I
I
think
brad
kind
of
proposed
the
the
idea
of
a
compliance
program
and
I
think
that's,
I
think,
that's
the
right
umbrella
to
think
about
on
the
kind
of
education
materials
that
also
was
suggesting
I'm
a
bit
less
sanguine
than
that
than
I
think
I
was
I
was
reading
alyssa
ads.
AA
I
think
it's
probably
I'm
super
wary
of
the
ietf,
providing
anything
that
would
even
have
the
appearance
of
legal
advice
here
further
exactly
the
reason
wendy's
is
like
the
ietf
is
not
your
lawyer.
The
icf
council
is
not
your
lawyer.
You
need
to
work
with
your
lawyer
to
understand
how
you
need
to
behave.
AA
So
if
there
was
anything
to
do
in
this
education
thing,
it
wouldn't
necessarily
be
super
high
level
and
and
rfc
would
almost
certainly
be
the
the
wrong
way
to
do
it.
So
I
think
what
I'm
at
a
high
level
I'm
taking
away.
There,
is
no
rsc
to
develop
here.
There's
barely
any
ietf
process
to
engage
here.
It's
mainly
an
llc
process,
developing
a
policy
and
possibly
some
work,
developing
an
education
program.
A
V
Okay,
a
couple
of
points
that
I
heard
in
this:
whatever
brad's
mixed
policy
and
guidelines,
it
is,
we
have
been
very
clear
from
the
beginning
of
this
work
that
it
is
intended
as
guidelines
we're
not
setting
policy
we're
not
setting
rules,
that's
because
otherwise
we
get
into
lots
of
mess
I'll
come
back.
I
want
to
comment
on
colin's
question
regarding
rtf.
V
The
practice
we
found
useful
is
to
figure
out
the
ietf
side
and
then
let
the
irtf
use
that
as
a
base
and
then
adjust
it
to
suit
their
needs,
rather
than
trying
to
have
the
ietf
to
find
something
for
the
irtf,
because
the
idf
does
not
actually
have
jurisdiction
over
the
irtf.
So
while
I
mean
I
I
work,
I
helped
work
out
the
ipr
rules
for
ietf
and
then
I
worked
with
the
irtf
chair
to
help
work
out
the
ipr
rules
for
the
irtf,
because
well
you
need
them,
but
they're
subtly
different.
V
So
I'm
not
too
worried
about
I'd
rather
keep
this
scoped
to
the
ietf,
and
that
gets
us
to
the
third
point,
which
is
one
of
the
things
that
caused
me
to
start.
Embarking
on
this
was
when
the
llc
put
out
a
statement
about
this,
because
either
the
statement
is
about
the
llc
itself,
in
which
case
it
is
irrelevant
to
the
ietf
and
ietf
participants,
or
the
statement
is
actually
about
ietf
and
the
ietf
standard
development
process,
which
the
llc
is
prohibited
from
influencing
by
the
charter
we
gave
them.
V
V
So
while
it
would
be
nice
to
punt
it
to
somebody
else
to
say
just
give
us
some
advice,
the
llc
actually
explicitly
should
not,
and
as
far
as
I
can
tell
must
not-
and
with
that
I'm
done,
and
I
do
I'm
curious
how
the
chairs,
how
and
when
the
chairs
will
figure
out
to
dispatch.
But
I
don't
expect
an
answer
today.
A
If
that's
something
or
educating
participants
a
bit
more,
those
two
forks,
I
am
at
least
hearing
from
the
community
there's
a
lot
of
engagement
and
people
are
yes,
as
mark
said,
I
just
clarified
not
advice
but
guidelines
or
education,
or
something
like
that.
I
think
there
is
a
lot
of
support
and
interest
in
doing
this.
A
W
W
All
of
the
risk
comes
from
the
behavior
of
the
participants,
so
we
can't
have
something
that
says
this
is
how
we
protect
the
organization
without
getting
into
detail
about
the
participants
and,
as
joel
says,
that's
something
that
the
llc
can't
do
and
and
even
then
even
assume
the
lrc
could
do
it.
You
can't
split
it
in
that
type
of
way,
so
I
have
to
disagree
quite
strongly
with
the
idea
that
that's
the
way
we
go
away
and
do
it.
I
think
that's
a
hopeless
task.
A
So,
yes,
as
joel
said,
it
may
not
be
possible
to
get
a
kind
of
consensus
from
what
we've
heard
today.
I
think,
there's
been
a
lot
of
different
options,
explored
I'm,
not
hearing
a
strong
support
for
any
direction
really,
but
I
am
definitely
hearing
from
the
community
that
the
work
is
important
and
that
it
needs
to
move
forward
in
some
form.
So
I
would
suggest
considering
all
of
that.
Oh
sorry,
lars
you've
just
joined
the
queue
please
go
for
it.
E
They
wanted
to
do
seemed
pretty
minimal
imaginable
to
me.
So
so
in
the
continuing
discussion-
and
I
suggest
we
use
the
gen
dispatch
list
for
lack
of
a
better
venue,
I
would
sort
of
try
and
see
if
we
can
find
something
that
is,
that
is
minimal
and
acceptable
to
participants
and
and
if
something
minimal
isn't
acceptable,
then
please
explain
why
it
in
your
in
your
contribution
to
the
discussion-
and
I
guess
we
will
talk
about
this
more
over
the
next
coming
weeks
and
months.
Thank
you.
A
B
Oh
dear,
been
typing
too
much,
someone
will
have
to
fill
in
the
last
bits
of
the
minutes,
as
I
was
taking
them
all
right,
so,
let's
and
actually
kirsty.
If
you
could
put
up
the
the
agenda
slide,
so
we
can
go
through
quickly
and
lars
did
you
want
to
say
something
as
we
get
into
this
you're
still
in
the
queue,
or
was
that
from
last
time,
good?
That
was
from
last
time
all
right.
So
it
sounds
like
the
well.
B
B
B
And
I'm
hearing
from
the
end
of
the
topic
on
anti-trust
guidelines
that
we
still
need
to
actually
make
a
decision
about
how
to
how
to
dispatch
this.
That
possibility
is
that
we
do
not
do
additional
work
on
this,
but
we
have
to
figure
out
what
we
need
to
do
in
terms
of
policy.
If
anything,
we
need
to
talk
about
what
we
need
to
do
in
terms
of
education.
If
anything.
A
A
A
B
B
M
Push
start
or
anything
like
that,
I
mean
I
I
do
nothing
is
sort
of
it's
a
phrase.
I
think
it's
really
a
saying
what
we
currently
have
is
reflective
is
adequate
for
our
policy.
It's
not
do
nothing,
it's
stay
with
what
we
have
right
and
I
I
I
guess
I
don't
feel
like
people
we
have
laid
out
for
people
a
clear
enough
set
of
choices
and
options
of
what
we
could
do
and
what
we
mean.
There's
different
sort
of
goals,
of
what
we
need
to
you
know
protect
an
organization
versus
educate
users.
M
I
mean
the
way
alyssa
laid
this
out
really
made
a
lot
of
sense.
To
me.
I
feel,
like
I
mean
I'm
fine
for
straw
polls
on
anything,
but
I
I
think
that
this
is
very
much
in
this.
I
don't
there's
people
that
walked
in
with
a
very
strong
opinion
of
where
they
were
standing
when
they
walked
into
this
meeting.
There's
been
a
lot
of
discussion,
that's
taken
it
all
over
the
place
and
I
don't
think
anyone's
really.
K
M
A
B
A
Z
We
have
a
set
of
rules
that
are,
you
know,
designed
to
minimize
our
anti-trust
risks,
and
so
so
the
status
quo
is
is
okay,
I
mean
it
and-
and
I
think
what
like
and
I
think
it's
a
very
important
point
for
us
to
understand
that
there
are
any
trust
risks
in
the
world.
The
ietf
has
a
strategy
for
managing
those
risks.
Z
Z
Z
Yeah-
and
it
also
strikes
me
that
like
what's,
I
guess,
I'm
not
entirely
getting
what
the
point
of
the
poll
is
like.
This
is
that's
a
very
nuanced
legal
question,
you're
asking
and
but
but
I'll
answer
it
for
you.
The
status
quo
is
sufficient
and-
and
I
don't
know
that
it's
useful-
to
have
a
bunch
of
non-lawyers
well.
B
Right,
you're,
you're,
suggesting
that
if
that
is
the
conclusion
of
the
group
in
the
end,
that
that's
okay
with
you,
that
the
status
quo
is
sufficient,
but
you
know
if
the
rest
of
the
group
thinks
there's
additional
stuff
to
be
done
and
there's
really
no
one
who
thinks
that
you
know
we
shouldn't
continue
our
work,
then
we're
gonna
do
some
additional
either
education
work
or
talk
to
you
about
policy
or
whatever.
That
might
be
right.
B
Z
Yeah-
and
I
think
my
point
is
just
the
status
quo-
is
an
option.
I
I
think
there
potentially
is
useful
work
to
be
done,
so
I'm
definitely
not
arguing
in
favor
of
doing
nothing,
but
I,
but
I
just
don't.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
we're
clear
that
you
know
this
is
we've
thought
very
carefully
about
our
antitrust
risks.
There's
been
a
lot
of
analysis
around
it
and
you
know
I
I'm
as
itf
counsel,
I'm
comfortable
with
our
current
strategy.
AC
First
of
all,
like
I
take
whatever
brad
says
in
this
type
of
very
seriously,
this
is
his
job
to
like
know
the
answer,
this
question,
but
before
I
one
thought
we
should
do
anything
at
all.
I
would
understand
what
the
problem
statement
was
that
we
were
attempting
to
address,
and
I
know
I
think
I'm
gonna
have
to
discuss.
AC
They
couldn't
get
from
council
because
they
don't
want
to
pay
council,
or
is
it
supposed
to
follow
the
people
like
for
doing
things
they
shouldn't
be
doing
because
they
haven't
been
told
to
do
them,
and
this
is
like
really
totally
different,
and
so
I
understand
the
problem
statement
is,
and
so
I
can
handle
the
problem
statement
I
really
wouldn't
want
to
like.
You
know,
decided
to
do
something.
B
Fair
enough,
I
am,
I
am
hearing
at
the
very
least
even
without
asking
the
question
that
discussion
by
way
of
is
there
more
work
to
do.
Is
there
more
stuff
that
we
want
to
take
on
that?
We
could
then
dispatch
some
place
is
worth
having
because,
as
brad
said,
you
know
the
the
current
state
of
affairs.
The
current
status
quo
is
that
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
out
there
already.
B
Maybe
that
is
going
to
be
sufficient
and
we're
going
to
come
to
consensus
that
there
is
no
additional
work
that
we
want
to
do
in
the
ietf
and
dispatch
it
that
way.
It
sounds
like
there's
a
sufficient
number
of
people
who
say
no.
No.
I
really
think
there
is
work
to
be
done,
but
at
least
having
that
discussion
initially
seems
like
a
good
idea.
B
B
AA
B
B
B
I
would
very
much
appreciate
brad
if
you
would
summarize
for
the
list
where
you
think
the
appropriate
ways
that
we
could
go
and
appropriate
ways
that
you
would
recommend
we
go
are.
I
think
that
would
be
good
input
to
everybody
and-
and
we
will
continue
the
discussion
there-
does
that
make
sense
to
you
kirsty.