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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Tue, 19 November 2019 08:48 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1226fef138=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 7AEA31208BD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:48:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es
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 uEHziVyyrxZ0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:48:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30FAB1208C9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:48:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1574153304; x=1574758104; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References:In-Reply-To: Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; bh=zOko0v92 V09SVdFOGY9qH+IozAO8ujq0UTbYBtcGKXU=; b=QxZQ31F6aXOREsFmhHyCaIQC 2zpJCWubRboF3u/6PrkDreACVGWnbKYubcxAwjWI+g3wD0ckKlvH3ORPAKNBIfmJ tRdXlW+CNWyROxYS6/7igH3Fw3JgAf7XmZKqbGvmz+ML2VEBhm9h6MbmhSZuSheu Wdlp5qm4++Gp6KFtRYM=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:48:24 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:48:23 +0100
Received: from [172.20.4.214] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50006472789.msg for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:48:22 +0100
X-MDRemoteIP: 10.8.10.10
X-MDHelo: [172.20.4.214]
X-MDArrival-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:48:22 +0100
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Return-Path: prvs=1226fef138=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ietf@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1f.0.191110
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:48:12 +0800
Subject: Re: "An open letter" signed by some IAB members
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <0F893F23-FDEF-45F0-9A5B-839A1E4DB0E8@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: "An open letter" signed by some IAB members
References: <CALaySJJN23vFf-k2VqU0Mx+sOWV8wJiTBBkDGopjK7vOtYyDyA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJN23vFf-k2VqU0Mx+sOWV8wJiTBBkDGopjK7vOtYyDyA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L0IA5ZeXa5NJd8AF9sTTk1Tu1OU>
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 08:48:34 -0000

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" <ietf-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de barryleiba@computer.org> 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.