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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 19 November 2019 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B137D120803 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 23:02:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 aEqYWhdJyWl7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 23:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE74B12085B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 23:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id s3so21979555ioe.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 23:02:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3zUca5sKeIk31RO73Fb6Vfjz7vTBBAF/fKR6QwcU+H8=; b=AWeC2zxMP0wJflzMINnvOoUOU1OMqFa94e6Hm1OclKDA8J+A8tmfasUcuFgp6K+MwJ 8efcvRKW8SXpDdyMGtYd0cKL8OnnDT6unKAUEBwmotqV+lEbEXOotaFTHk6ZE7+sP0bj OpiMa4AGErR3d2+FkIqD1DAM3wV/flalH4Yuu3cOIXaF1GnWWUwRHCAY5/KtyfBpo2QI HJi2SzTCCuVK+B88RYUFMAgsibLnhluKthNh92i5UW/OZcgfGEKKgFSdwME+CYg0sz57 dwiwbVZuNR4lTDoSqPvmIYi4Dzkwuq6SW9evR5WVhgGCbvQyoLbGtOkmOO8+YDVVeM8J 8HNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3zUca5sKeIk31RO73Fb6Vfjz7vTBBAF/fKR6QwcU+H8=; b=cyGJ3UoTzuGS8pFQtkuVhcWkYanbo1x9nLM9AcQAysijQazEK8mTL5B1FL7wLFvc0J +o5xfU3AOWxlTOzr0gVPcMjGTA2xpOVp/+Y4sL8tLYrb7/tELazDQMXoqi3nW4/8/76a PFbH1wTOBgC8Q/JBMKs5ZsWGDfP0EpL5klYAIlUeizXEzakqDQQnqUP/MrL6/7eOdg55 IHyVL9EvUwIGzBc4XGjeKAEdPKZX4HPU8QLOyAIVQA+HE24zsPbcDOSwRtIY5APlKKQ7 hEqjonzP3T6x5/6dwp6o5w/070GyGAJD3/L54YSRUnda6wWkl3zkcfCrd1WqzbRj5bIf uTTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUeIjDLmiJoOnEnqyzfk2VbL32hh2GJ44bU+MabN7Xp3bEYA00I /UdNRJBXmuWXc+oraI4Vd4ryAhWCFFFbJRUjUsRxJJ9GJgc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx9mY1mWGHUIMF3yFOJT4it9cLBLNfDwTntpER+vxpayPeGGOGG5oXhGEOHZWFytpBqe3RJrF0XKgJlx5+dd/8=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9e10:: with SMTP id h16mr1176687ioh.27.1574146958561; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 23:02:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJJN23vFf-k2VqU0Mx+sOWV8wJiTBBkDGopjK7vOtYyDyA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJN23vFf-k2VqU0Mx+sOWV8wJiTBBkDGopjK7vOtYyDyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:02:12 +0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCOF=_CxZ9DvRUVRGwojfe3BqaGNuNRsTmPi8HSwsOo_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "An open letter" signed by some IAB members
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004a1dc50597ada634"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/J9HxcrQV07yVwpp8Fp8BZoZ7dnU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:02:51 -0000

Hi Barry,

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:42 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Thanks for reading the letter. It's an important topic and one that ISOC HK
and ISOC itself have weighed in on as well. Their statements, especially
ISOC's at
https://www.internetsociety.org/news/statements/2019/interim-injunction-ordered-by-hong-kong-high-court/
were part of why I took up a pen for this.

After I wrote this, I shared it (including the proposed affiliation) with
the IAB.  I felt that it was the appropriate affiliation because of the two
references to IAB statements in the document (my status as CUHK alumnus was
cited to indicate my own personal care for the situation in Hong Kong).

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:
>
>
There was some time pressure here, and one of those who later asked to sign
(Wes) unfortunately came in too late to be included.  I did not have time
to ask whether Jeff or Martin wanted company affiliation included; I
included it with Stephen because he sent me the affiliation he preferred
when he asked to co-sign.  The failure to include other affiliations for
them is down to that time pressure, nothing more.



> 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.”
>
>
I hope you clarified it for them, and I hope this exchange clarifies it for
any members of the IETF community who gathered the wrong impression.  But
the letter is not signed on behalf of the IAB, not on the IAB web site, and
not attempting to present itself as the work of the whole IAB.  It follows
the same mechanisms we used in the past, including in previous Amicus
briefs (such as that signed for the Wikimedia brief some time ago).

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.
>
> I am sorry that this surprised you, but given your own previous service on
the IAB, I am equally surprised that you had not seen similar usage
before.  It has been done multiple times since I re-joined 6 years ago.  I
also anticipate that it may happen again in the future, with similar
process (passing the document to the IAB for review first, with
affiliation).

regards,

Ted Hardie

> 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
>
>