RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 26 April 2014 22:16 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 5B0171A0663 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 15:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.973
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.973 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] 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 l81c0pWErfFQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 15:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6E61A0676 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 15:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1WeAtd-0003M3-0T; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 18:16:33 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 18:16:27 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, lrosen@rosenlaw.com, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest
Message-ID: <5565517810D977C4F53EC65F@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140426052032.0af9e9a0@resistor.net>
References: <003401cf5cbc$8321ef40$8965cdc0$@rosenlaw.com> <535A9F58.1080105@dcrocker.net> <04ee01cf60b3$b079f9b0$116ded10$@rosenlaw.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140426052032.0af9e9a0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.115
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GZO9iFM4cZRRjqfuvod97T7RudY
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: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 22:16:55 -0000
--On Saturday, April 26, 2014 06:50 -0700 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote: > Hi Larry, > At 11:25 25-04-2014, Lawrence Rosen wrote: >> We all expect bias in standards organizations -- indeed it is >> a irreducible factor in science and engineering and all human >> endeavors (and particularly so in my profession, law!). I >> don't think anyone here is naïve about that. >... > I chose three companies from various parts of the world. >... > They all mentioned ethics. I assume that companies which > consider themselves as reputable would ensure that their > employees and people under contract with them will follow >... Hi. I think there is a useful discussion in this area that the IETF should be having. I also think that discussion is easily diverted into ratholes, whether through good intentions or a desire to head off any action. Referring back to comments I made early in this thread or what lead to it, I don't think we need more procedural rules here. One the reasons for that is that an attempt to get to them leads us straight into the hairsplitting debate into which the latest notes seem to point. I think what I believe was Larry's core point is well-taken: a large fraction of us have already committed to various statements of professional ethics and the rest of us should, as a matter of professionalism and good relationships, behave as if we had. I'm also not particularly concerned about the situations in which an employee of Company XYZ is promoting a protocol in which Company XYZ is a known advocate or stands to profit. Most of the important elements of those situations are covered by our IPR rules and most of the rest are pretty obvious. Where I think we have a potential problem involves situations in which the core work to produce a standard (or other specification) may be going on in an industry consortium whose membership and participation (including, e.g., consulting and seconded personnel relationship) are not obvious. If the work of such a consortium is public or generally available for use without specific licensing, there are no IPR issues (and disclosures probably identify the consortium, not the contributors). But suppose the IETF is asked to approve the results, an AD sponsors a document, the RFC Editor is asked to publish them or parts of them in _any_ stream, IANA registries are created or used, expert reviewers are appointed and review requests, or similar actions are proposed or taken. I think the community should then know involvements that might be associated with biases or conflicts of assumptions, and that those disclosures should occur as a matter of personal integrity and ethics. john
- Author disclosures and conflict of interest Lawrence Rosen
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Lawrence Rosen
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Lawrence Rosen
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Lawrence Rosen
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Dave Crocker
- RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Lawrence Rosen
- RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Adrian Farrel
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Dale R. Worley
- RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest manning bill
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Randy Presuhn
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest David Farmer
- RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest S Moonesamy
- RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest John C Klensin
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest John C Klensin
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Sam Hartman
- Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest Avri Doria