Re: Montevideo statement

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 09 October 2013 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 9C04121F8FF8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lfwqHj+5sVOR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89D121F8F24 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1VTuJg-00097P-8s; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:00:44 -0400
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:00:39 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Montevideo statement
Message-ID: <E003D3DC4E4B3208CF14E8E0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131009064438.GA47673@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <ABCF1EB7-3437-4EC3-B0A8-0EDB2EDEA538@ietf.org> <20131007225129.GA572@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20131008213432.0c1e4b30@resistor.net> <20131009064438.GA47673@mx1.yitter.info>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:00:53 -0000

--On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 02:44 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

>...
> That does not say that the IAB has issued a statement.  On the
> contrary, the IAB did not issue a statement.  I think the
> difference between some individuals issuing a statement in
> their capacity as chairs and CEOs and so on, and the body for
> which they are chair or CEO or so on issuing a similar
> statement, is an important one.  We ought to attend to it.
> 
> Please note that this message is not in any way a comment on
> such leadership meetings.  In addition, for the purposes of
> this discussion I refuse either to affirm or deny concurrence
> in the IAB chair's statement.  I merely request that we, all
> of us, attend to the difference between "the IAB Chair says"
> and "the IAB says".

Andrew,

While I agree that the difference is important for us to note,
this is a press release.  It would be naive at best to assume
that its intended audience would look at it and say "Ah. A bunch
of people with leadership roles in important Internet
organizations happened to be in the same place and decided to
make a statement in their individual capacities".  Not only does
it not read that way, but there are conventions for delivering
the "individual capacity" message, including prominent use of
phrases like "for identification only". 

Independent of how I feel about the content of this particular
statement,  if the community either doesn't like the message or
doesn't like this style of doing things, I think that needs to
be discussed and made clear.  That includes not only at the
level of preferences about community consultation but about
whether, in in the judgment of the relevant people, there is
insufficient time to consult the community, no statement should
be made at all.

Especially from the perspective of having been in the
sometimes-uncomfortable position of IAB Chair, I don't think IAB
members can disclaim responsibility in a situation like this.
Unlike the Nomcom-appointed IETF Chair, the IAB Chair serves at
the pleasure and convenience of the IAB.  If you and your
colleagues are not prepared to share responsibility for
statements (or other actions) the IAB Chair makes that involve
that affiliation, then you are responsible for taking whatever
actions are required to be sure that only those actions are
taken for which you are willing to share responsibility.   Just
as you have done, I want to stress that I'm not recommending any
action here, only that IAB members don't get to disclaim
responsibility made by people whose relationship with the IAB is
the reason why that are, e.g., part of a particular letter or
statement.

      john