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

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

--On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 07:31, Nico Williams wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 05:18:41PM +0800, Mark Nottingham
> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Excellent and clarifying analogy.  MPs and such often speak
> publicly for themselves while using their membership of
> whatever august/lame body they are members of, yet no one
> mistakes their speech for that of the larger body.

Nico,

I actually dispute the validity of the analogy.  "Member of
Parliament" works, and works the way you and others have
suggested, because most likely readers know what a parliament
(or other representative legislative body) is and more or less
how they work.  They may even have had reason to conclude that,
democracy being what it is, that some members of some
parliaments may actually be clods or utter fools.  Consequently,
they know that "Member of Parliament" is an identification tag
and not a claim to authority on behalf of the parliament or the
country.  By contrast, "King of Lower Slobbovia" is most likely
a claim to authority, perhaps so even if one knows that Lower
Slobbovia is a constitutional monarchy in which the king is
usually accepted to be seen and not heard and would be ignored
or overthrown if he spoke up on any matter of national political
substance.

"Member of IAB" is not like "Member of Parliament" unless one
actually knows what the IAB is, something about its relationship
to the community and the Internet, and what our customs are with
regard to role and authority identification (e.g., that almost
all consensus documents issued by the IAB are signed by one
member with "for the IAB" in them or are otherwise clear that
they are IAB documents (for example as Ted noted, such documents
always, or almost always, appear on the IAB's web page).
Without that knowledge the reader cannot know whether four
people signing a document and identifying themselves as "Member
of IAB" is just four guys with a shared opinion or whether it is
the formal statement of a deliberative body with a high level of
qualifications and expertise in the relevant area.

If that does not make the distinction clear enough, consider
what assumptions you would make if you received an
authoritative-looking document or letter signed by four people
who identified themselves as Justices of the Supreme Court of
some country.   Personal opinions or legally-binding decision?  

If you (or any other random reader unfamiliar with that
country's politics and traditions) aren't sure about the answer,
it makes a very strong case for including language that avoids
any possible doubt.   As Brian and others have pointed out,
adding the few words needed to be clear that someone is
expressing a personal, rather than institutional or
organizational, opinion is not hard.  If someone would have
already made the right guess, those words are also harmless.  If
they have guessed wrong, it might be important.   And, if the
IAB (or IAB members) have gotten out of the habit of being clear
about that distinction, I suggest that it is time they get back
into it.

best,
  john