Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Possible Signs of Dominance action


On Apr 11, 2017, at 10:55 PMPDT, Andrew Myles (amyles) <> wrote:

G’day Geoff
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?

No, I don't.
Competitors privately discussing how to make their technology dominant over another competitors technology are not OK.
See your next statement.

Of course, regardless of what we decide, companies will always need to satisfy anti-trust laws.


From: Geoff Thompson [] 
Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2017 1:14 PM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
Cc: Geoff Thompson; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Possible Signs of Dominance action
On Apr 11, 2017, at 4:49 PMPDT, Andrew Myles (amyles) <amyles@CISCO.COM> wrote:
G'day Adrian & Paul
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.