Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Mon, 21 April 2014 03:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C931F1A0182 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.174
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4-yWBECcdfz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2908B1A0096 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P6VSJKM1CG006N4P@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P6SVAPGZY800004W@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01P6VSJIRAPQ00004W@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:16:04 -0400" <8647B94D503D57B710D99D7E@[192.168.1.128]>
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwZr=wVX6eD+yGVOaxkSy5fJbuAErTshOG+2BywUvkDfAA@mail.gmail.com> <01P6QCMYYMJ000004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <6EF4DECC078B08C89F163155@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <01P6QVVGQA4W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5350A9FB.9010307@dougbarton.us> <01P6S93XQ9TI00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5351A89D.7000700@dougbarton.us> <01P6STS0F6I600004X@mauve.mrochek.com> <5351CCBC.4070901@meetinghouse.net> <01P6TOCIJM0W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <56CF13B8250F8BE24F6F10CC@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <01P6TTN1ILCQ00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <8647B94D503D57B710D99D7E@[192.168.1.128]>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0u1mTtF_nfmTQVPcmtFgucT2oHQ
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 03:52:38 -0000

> >> there as a potential for the appearance of conflicts of
> >> interest.   Those conflicts need not be of the traditional
> >> legal or financial variety.  They can occur (or be perceived
> >> to occur) when someone's institutional or organizational
> >> relationships outside the IETF might lead people to suspect
> >> that review and decision-making might not be as careful,
> >> unbiased, or primarily reflective of the interest of the IETF
> >> or the broader Internet community as we would like it to
> >> assume it always is.  For situations where troublesome
> >> relationships exist or might be inferred (even by those
> >> suffering from mild paranoid), we need to get much more
> >> careful about disclosure of the relationships involved.
> >
> > Good point, and I agree.
> >
> > These waters are going to be difficult to nagivate, but I
> > don't see any alternative.

> Yes.  However, I see some parallel to the IPR situation.  We
> could presumably treat members of the community like adults (I
> think almost all are) and say "if you have an outside-the-IETF
> relationship to the developers, or developing organization, of a
> spec, you must at least disclose it", it would go a long way
> and, IMO, not be particularly difficult.

I concur.

> Unlike the IPR
> situation, this one is unlikely to require involving lawyers in
> what one could or could not say/ disclose.

I suppose it could pose difficulties for consultants in certain sorts of mixed
roles, but to be honest I don't really have much sympathy for people doing
that.

> The waters get
> difficult only if we feel a need to take the next steps toward
> forced recusal or worse.  Maybe, if we just demanded disclosure
> as an expected professional courtesy and act of honesty toward
> the rest of the community and understood that either an
> undisclosed conflict or a disclosed one that seemed to distort a
> decision could be reasonable grounds for appeals, we could get
> away without a requirement for a lot of hair-splitting rules.

Indeed. Something for the IESG to consider, that's for sure.

				Ned