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

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

(top post)

Andrew,

In part because we so often reach the same conclusion about such
things even though our reasoning is often different, and because
we have both been on, and chaired, the IAB, I'm feeling a need
to respond to your note on a subject I normally would have
stayed out of.  In case it makes a difference, I am glad a note
got sent, am largely in agreement with its content, and am very
relieved that the order was clarified appropriately.  I also
have trouble getting to Barry's "wildly inappropriate", but I do
think the signatures and affiliation listings, without
qualification, represent, at best, poor judgment.  I also think
you are being a bit inconsistent in ways that reflect on that
opinion.  Specifically,...

* The level of understanding in governments and communities
outside ones related to Internet technology about what the IAB
is and the role it plays differ widely, from "never heard of
them" (perhaps modified by "sounds like an important body") to
confusion with the role and influence of the Internet Activities
Board in the pre-ICANN, pre-Kobe, and pre-commercialization
periods.    The perception of what the affiliations might mean
may differ with different understandings of what the IAB is all
about.  I believe almost no one outside our immediate community
knows that formal IAB statements are almost always endorsed with
"for the IAB" or similar language (itself, IIR, a moderately
recent innovation).   Nor would they know whether the IAB has a
dozen members, more than that, or perhaps only four, so it would
be impossible for them to assess whether the letter was signed
by all or a majority of the IAB (in either of which cases
whether it was an official IAB statement might be
hair-splitting) or a by a relatively small fraction of the IAB
possibly speaking only for themselves.  I also suggest that
having all signatories identified as "Member, Internet
Architecture Board" reinforces any accidental impression that
the IAB is the originator of the note whether all IAB members
signed or endorsed it or not.   It would have been a happy
coincidence had at least one signatory been listed with a
different, non-IAB, affiliation (e.g., "Jane Doe, CEO
BigInternetCorp") because that would have made any inferences
that the letter was an IAB statement much less likely.

* Since taking on the role of ISOC CEO, you have taken the lead
in making certain the community (and onlookers) understand the
difference between your personal opinions and an organizational
position for which you are the spokesperson.  I observe that
your note to the IETF list starts with a disclaimer consistent
with that distinction.  In the case of this letter, while I
don't believe that any of the signatories were deliberately
trying to mislead (and I note Ted's comments about time pressure
and assume that, had there been more time, this might have been
handled a bit differently), I also believe that, even without
your example, most of us know how to write phrases like "for
identification", "not a formal IAB position", "in individual
capacities only", and so on.  From my perspective as a former
IAB Member and Chair, I think that it would have represented
better judgment (and, again, been consistent with the example
you have set) to attach such clarifying wording in this case.  

* I don't think Barry's message implied that the signatories
were trying to give the impression that they were speaking for
the IETF, the so-called Internet Technical Community, or any
broader group (including, for example, the Internet Society or
its membership or leadership).   At least in part because of
general ignorance and some confusion about the organizational
relationships involved (see above), I doubt that many people
would make inferences beyond "speaking for the IAB" unless they
thought the IAB runs the Internet.   I think that is exactly
what Barry said, no matter how anecdotal his evidence.
Regardless of what the "very point" of the IAB is, we certainly
agree that is should not be required to have community consensus
(rough or otherwise) before taking a position like the one this
letter represents.  On the other hand, I don't believe the IAB
(at least post-Kobe) ever makes decisions or statements without
at least a general sense of consensus _within the IAB_.  That
should be true whether that consensus is about a particular
position or about a particular IAB member or two having views
sufficiently aligned with the IAB consensus that the IAB
delegates them with the responsibility and authority to take on
representational roles and to speak for the IAB in those roles.
So I don't see what your comments about speaking for the IETF
have to do with this.  I also don't believe we have reached the
point in which individual members of the IAB (or even four of
them) can speak for the IAB without internal IAB discussion and
consensus.   But, again, AFAICT, none of them have made the
claim that they spoken for the IAB or represent IAB consensus.

* Finally, as to "I have this view and, by the way, my community
appointed me to this August Body precisely so that I would have
views and say them", I am unable to find any language in either
the IAB Charter or the most recent IAB role description to the
Nomcom that says, precisely or otherwise, that people are
appointed to the IAB because they have views and will say them,
especially without limits on the topics of those views.  In
particular, I do not see the holding of views based on deep
expertise on policy matters and their implications in the
description of qualifications given to the Nomcom (although I
would hope some IAB members would have those skills and some
statements in the description are consistent with that hope).
More important, I see nothing in those documents that encourages
members of the IAB to express their individual views on subjects
while identifying their views specifically as members of the
IAB.  Of course, it doesn't prohibit their doing so either -- to
a very significant degree, we rely on individual responsibility
and good judgment.

So, while I don't see this as earthshaking and cannot get to
"wildly inappropriate" in the absence of clear implications that
people were speaking for the community (or at least for the IAB)
or to intentionally mislead others into thinking they were, it
seems to me that most (although certainly not all) IAB members
over the years have understood the distinction between speaking
for the IAB or in their IAB roles and expressing their personal
views and have understood mechanisms for making that distinction
clear.   I see lack of care about that distinction as bad for
the IAB and poor judgment wrt the extended IETF community and
the IAB's many audiences.  And, if, as Ted suggests, things just
like this have happened many times before, I hope that one
result of this discussion is that it will not be taken as
endorsement for similar things happening in the future.

best,
   john



--On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 08:46 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
> 
> I am an employee (CEO) of the Internet Society and I am
> emphatically not speaking for it.  As a matter of full
> disclosure, however, the Internet Society also issued a
> statement in respect of the situation in Hong Kong, in
> consultation with the ISOC chapter in Hong Kong.
> 
> I was both a member and chair of the IAB for a period of time.
> During that time, the much-ballyhooed "IANA transition"
> happened.  I had plenty of occasions to speak about various
> things going on during that time, and I quite often used my
> affiliation with the IAB under such circumstances.  It is with
> that background in mind that I send this note.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 02:42:04PM +0800, Barry Leiba wrote:
> 
>> 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 am entirely unwilling to speculate about worldwide
> interpretation trends of texts based on the sample, "Three
> friends of Barry Leiba under uncontrolled questioning."
> Please don't stand on that kind of sample as anything other
> than the worst kind of anecdata.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Or else they are presenting evidence that a community that the
> audiece might otherwise respect decided that these were people
> who had a thing or two to say about how the Internet works.
> That seems to me important because …
>  
>> I think this is wildly inappropriate.
> 
> … I think it is wildly appropriate.  The _very point_ of the
> IAB is that it is not subject to consensus rules that the IETF
> is.  I think it would indeed be inappropriate for people to
> use their affiliation with the IESG this way: the IESG _does_
> speak for the IETF.  But the IAB does not, and that
> not-speaking-for role is in fact part of the _point_ of having
> the IAB at all.
> 
> If IAB members cannot tell people, "I have this view and, by
> the way, my community appointed me to this August Body
> precisely so that I would have views and say them," then I am
> mystified what we want the IAB for except simple
> constitutional duties.  If the IAB exists to be the Governor
> General[1] of the IETF, then we should change its charter.
> But I don't think that's the IAB job today, and I think its
> members need to be able to be clear under what title they have
> an opinion.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada