| RFC : | rfc9680 |
| Title: | DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) |
| Date: | October 2024 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
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
ERRATA