Re: "An open letter" signed by some IAB members

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jordi,

Yes, I agree that clarity here is good. However, "Member of IAB" is pretty specific, just as "Member of Parliament" is specific; it is clearly distinguishing the part from the whole.

There are mitigating factors here (as discussed) where it could have been more clear, and I appreciate the need for honest attempts to be as clear as possible. What I was trying to get at was that I suspect that a large part of the problem is that a letter that is only signed by members of a board can easily give the impression that it's from that board -- something that others have noticed too. Avoiding that impression is good, but that doesn't mean we should generalise this instance into a rule about all mentions of affiliation.

Cheers,


> On 19 Nov 2019, at 5:09 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I know is not always easy. I use some times my company name and even email instead of a private one even if I'm speaking on my own personal capacity ... I feel that we all in general, should clear state in which capacity we are speaking. Is good, nice and convient to say "I work here and volunteer here" as well, of course, but if clarified if it is an IAB (in this case) view of personal one.
> 
> However, in all the cases that you mention, the solution that I mention, makes it very clear. In case all the folks that sign are on their own, a footnote "stating it" or alternatively a similar text, below each of the signatures (when there is mixture of cases).
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 19/11/19 17:00, "ietf en nombre de Mark Nottingham" <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
> 
>    I suspect part of the issue here is that the letter is signed *only* by IAB members, not mixed with others - and so I agree that such a clarification would have been helpful.
> 
>    Question: Would people have felt such a clarification were necessary if it these names were mixed in with non-IAB (and non-IETF) names and affiliations?
> 
>    And, would people have had an issue if it were signed only by one person who used their affiliation (as a *member* of the IAB, not the whole)?
> 
>    To put it another way -- sometimes I give talks and mention that I'm a member of the IAB, and sometimes I omit other affiliations that I hold or have held (for example, it's rare that I need to trot out that I served as president of my local primary school for several years). Are people seriously suggesting that this is out of line?
> 
>    Cheers,
> 
> 
>> On 19 Nov 2019, at 4:48 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> While I believe that anyone has the right to state his position at any organization, never mind is paid or not (unless a contractual clause disallows that), I think that when it is not an official position of that organization, it should be done stating clearly "that is a personal opinion".
>> 
>> Something in the line of a footnote clearly indicating that this letter is not the "official position of the IAB" (for this specific case).
>> 
>> Otherwise, tomorrow, a few of us can sign a similar letter showing below our names "Member, IETF", and who is reading it, probably will not recognize that we aren't "empowered" to sign as IETF, as we are just a bunch of participants, but not speaking from the IETF.
>> 
>> And so, clearly agree with Barry here.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> @jordipalet
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> El 19/11/19 14:42, "ietf en nombre de Barry Leiba" <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
>> 
>>   Perhaps some of you have seen that Ted Hardie posted an open letter on
>>   the Hong Kong high court’s injunction on Internet speech:
>>   https://medium.com/@ted.ietf/an-open-letter-on-the-hong-kong-high-court-injunction-on-internet-speech-7f0048df2f54
>>   The letter is signed by Ted and is co-signed by three other IAB
>>   members, each signing as an individual: the letter is not from the IAB
>>   and doesn’t claim to be.
>> 
>>   Nevertheless, note that all signatories identify themselves as
>>   “Member, Internet Architecture Board”, and three of the four do not
>>   list their company affiliations.  This has two effects:
>> 
>>   1. By being signed by four IAB members who are identified primarily as
>>   IAB members, the letter *appears* to be from the IAB.  I have passed
>>   this by three non-IETF friends, asking them who they think the letter
>>   is from, and all three said, “The Internet Architecture Board.”
>> 
>>   2. By using “Member, Internet Architecture Board” this way, those
>>   signing the letter are effectively (whether by intent or not) using
>>   their IAB positions to gain credibility for their personal opinions.
>> 
>>   I think this is wildly inappropriate.  I think those of us in IETF
>>   leadership should be scrupulously careful NOT to call out our IETF
>>   affiliations this way unless we are speaking for the organization.
>>   The fact that the letter refers to things that have been published
>>   with IAB consensus doesn’t change the fact that the *letter* does not
>>   have IAB consensus, and we must be careful not to give the impression
>>   that it does.
>> 
>>   I’ve discussed this with Ted, who thinks that there’s nothing wrong
>>   with how the letter was signed and posted.  That disturbs me.  I tried
>>   to let it go, but I’m sufficiently bothered by it that I felt the need
>>   to take it to the community.  This is that.  Ted tells me that all IAB
>>   members were invited to co-sign the letter, and that none brought up a
>>   concern about the use of the “Member, IAB” affiliation.
>> 
>>   As you think about this and — I hope — discuss it, please keep this in mind:
>> 
>>   - I’m NOT talking about the content of the message and whether I do or
>>   don’t agree with it.  That’s not the point.  I hope that as we discuss
>>   this we do NOT go into the content, the politics, and so on.  Let’s
>>   please keep this highly charged issue out of IETF discussions.
>> 
>>   - I’m NOT looking to beat Ted up here; what I want is for this not to
>>   happen again, and I hope the ensuing discussion supports that.
>> 
>>   -- 
>>   Barry
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.theipv6company.com
>> The IPv6 Company
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>    --
>    Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/