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

["Roni Even (A)" <[e-mail]>]

HI,
I would have expected something similar to what we do in the IETF when a WG chair responds to a comment stating 

Name WG  xxx Chair as Individual

Roni Even
AVTcore co-chair as Individual

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:19 AM
> To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: "An open letter" signed by some IAB members
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
> 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.
> 
> There are mitigating factors here (as discussed) where it could have been
> more clear, and I appreciate the need for honest attempts to be as clear as
> possible. What I was trying to get at was that I suspect that a large part of the
> problem is that a letter that is only signed by members of a board can easily
> give the impression that it's from that board -- something that others have
> noticed too. Avoiding that impression is good, but that doesn't mean we
> should generalise this instance into a rule about all mentions of affiliation.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> > On 19 Nov 2019, at 5:09 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > I know is not always easy. I use some times my company name and even
> email instead of a private one even if I'm speaking on my own personal
> capacity ... I feel that we all in general, should clear state in which capacity we
> are speaking. Is good, nice and convient to say "I work here and volunteer
> here" as well, of course, but if clarified if it is an IAB (in this case) view of
> personal one.
> >
> > However, in all the cases that you mention, the solution that I mention,
> makes it very clear. In case all the folks that sign are on their own, a footnote
> "stating it" or alternatively a similar text, below each of the signatures (when
> there is mixture of cases).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jordi
> > @jordipalet
> >
> >
> >
> > El 19/11/19 17:00, "ietf en nombre de Mark Nottingham" <ietf-
> [e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
> >
> >    I suspect part of the issue here is that the letter is signed *only* by IAB
> members, not mixed with others - and so I agree that such a clarification
> would have been helpful.
> >
> >    Question: Would people have felt such a clarification were necessary if it
> these names were mixed in with non-IAB (and non-IETF) names and
> affiliations?
> >
> >    And, would people have had an issue if it were signed only by one person
> who used their affiliation (as a *member* of the IAB, not the whole)?
> >
> >    To put it another way -- sometimes I give talks and mention that I'm a
> member of the IAB, and sometimes I omit other affiliations that I hold or
> have held (for example, it's rare that I need to trot out that I served as
> president of my local primary school for several years). Are people seriously
> suggesting that this is out of line?
> >
> >    Cheers,
> >
> >
> >> On 19 Nov 2019, at 4:48 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <jordi.palet=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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" <[e-mail]
> en nombre de [e-mail]> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >    --
> >    Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/