Re: Posting and disclaimer (was Re: "Early rebid" (was Re: letters from Ted & Alissa))

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Andrew,

I've not commented on a few of your postings because I felt a
bit awkward about the dual role issues, but that is my problem,
not yours or ISOC's.  However, two observations about this
particular exchange.

(1) While I don't know how much the disclaimers help, your
expertise in some specific areas, including at least one in
which the IETF seems to have a serious expertise shortage, is
such that it would be, IMO, short-sighted (and even dumb) for
the IETF to exclude that expertise and input because of whatever
day job you happen to hold.  I am surprised you have the time to
follow IETF work closely enough to comment usefully.  The
surprise is, however, a pleasant one and I, for one, appreciate
your making the effort even (or especially) when your reasoning
or opinion and mine differ.  I also think the disclaimer is
desirable even while I'm skeptical about how effective it is.

(2) Your predecessors were unlikely to comment on IETF technical
and near-technical issues nor to be taken seriously if they did.
The reasons for that are independent of specific ISOC policy
changes and their context and even of debates about IETF
traditions.   Your history includes making significant technical
contributions in multiple areas, chairing an important technical
WG or two, serving on the IAB and as its Chair, etc.  None of
your predecessors had any of that history in their background,
so this is a new situation for both ISOC and the IETF.  Are
safeguards against your abusing that status, or specific
remedies if you do, needed?  I'd rather not spend significant
IETF (or, for that matter, ISOC) time on that question unless
there is evidence of a problem -- evidence that goes beyond a
general concern that you may not be able to keep roles entirely
separate when you comment.  However, without knowing the details
of your contract, I suspect that the ISOC BoT has better
mechanisms for addressing, and dealing quickly with, any really
abusive behavior that might appear than IETF participants have
vis-a-vis its leadership.

best,
    john


--On Thursday, July 4, 2019 10:23 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> For the record, I'm not exactly sure which hat I'm wearing at
> the moment, but this message does contain a reference to an
> Internet Society policy.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 09:20:46AM -0400, Michael StJohns
> wrote:
>> 
>> It's pretty hard to not take the above with a grain of salt.
>> You're not just an ISOC employee, but the president and CEO
>> and as such have a lot of sway over the funding ISOC provides
>> to the IETF.
> 
> Ok.  So, there are two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  I continue to participate as an individual sometimes, in
> which case I make the above disclaimer.  (See below for why.)
> 
> 2.  I don't participate as an individual.
> 
> Are you advocating (2)?  I can see an argument for it, but
> it's not entirely in keeping with the IETF traditions.  (Of
> course, those traditions are not timeless, and there might be
> good reasons to change them.)
> 
>> I can't remember Lynn or Cathy making a "not speaking for"
>> statement in the time they were in your job, but this is the
>> third from you in last day or so.
> 
> It was one of the "new rules" we adopted for Internet Society
> staff. I announced them in March:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ugu6O_5tCnNzTUmVzIu
> hNFKPzbE. I'm not surprised that Lynn or Kathy didn't make
> such statements, since they weren't operating under those
> rules.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A