Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

John C Klensin <> Sat, 19 April 2014 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EF21A0068 for <>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.872
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qNtkLKNoIYq3 for <>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74B41A0055 for <>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1WbbgC-000FZR-Fh; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:16:04 -0400
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:16:04 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
Message-ID: <8647B94D503D57B710D99D7E@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
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-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:16:17 -0000

--On Saturday, 19 April, 2014 10:08 -0700 wrote:

>> there as a potential for the appearance of conflicts of
>> interest.   Those conflicts need not be of the traditional
>> legal or financial variety.  They can occur (or be perceived
>> to occur) when someone's institutional or organizational
>> relationships outside the IETF might lead people to suspect
>> that review and decision-making might not be as careful,
>> unbiased, or primarily reflective of the interest of the IETF
>> or the broader Internet community as we would like it to
>> assume it always is.  For situations where troublesome
>> relationships exist or might be inferred (even by those
>> suffering from mild paranoid), we need to get much more
>> careful about disclosure of the relationships involved.
> Good point, and I agree.
> These waters are going to be difficult to nagivate, but I
> don't see any alternative.

Yes.  However, I see some parallel to the IPR situation.  We
could presumably treat members of the community like adults (I
think almost all are) and say "if you have an outside-the-IETF
relationship to the developers, or developing organization, of a
spec, you must at least disclose it", it would go a long way
and, IMO, not be particularly difficult.   Unlike the IPR
situation, this one is unlikely to require involving lawyers in
what one could or could not say/ disclose.   The waters get
difficult only if we feel a need to take the next steps toward
forced recusal or worse.  Maybe, if we just demanded disclosure
as an expected professional courtesy and act of honesty toward
the rest of the community and understood that either an
undisclosed conflict or a disclosed one that seemed to distort a
decision could be reasonable grounds for appeals, we could get
away without a requirement for a lot of hair-splitting rules.