Re: NomCom 2012-2013: Third Call for Volunteers

Yoshihiro Ohba <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp> Thu, 02 August 2012 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>
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 15E6E11E80C5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 0ieX4aRuasoZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imx12.toshiba.co.jp (imx12.toshiba.co.jp [61.202.160.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 292E811E80BF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from arc11.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.90.127]) by imx12.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id q72EaciJ007959; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 23:36:38 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by arc11.toshiba.co.jp id q72EablD021456; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 23:36:37 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ovp11.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.90.148] by arc11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id ZAA21455; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 23:36:37 +0900
Received: from mx2.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id q72Eabha009073; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 23:36:37 +0900 (JST)
Received: from tsbpoa.po.toshiba.co.jp by toshiba.co.jp id q72EabjO025157; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 23:36:37 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [133.199.16.155] by mail.po.toshiba.co.jp (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.05 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0M8400C66TWZN090@mail.po.toshiba.co.jp>; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 23:36:37 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 23:36:39 +0900
From: Yoshihiro Ohba <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>
Subject: Re: NomCom 2012-2013: Third Call for Volunteers
In-reply-to: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208020132140.96564@fledge.watson.org>
To: Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org>
Message-id: <501A9077.5020501@toshiba.co.jp>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <20120731044425.12307.52108.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208011848500.88006@fledge.watson.org> <3B46F876-010A-4C9D-9CC4-704211939459@frobbit.se> <501A0BDB.2040501@toshiba.co.jp> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208020132140.96564@fledge.watson.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:36:41 -0000

Probably nothing can be perfect when defining "affiliation", but I
think some definition can help reducing hidden conflict of interests.

Here is an example in other standards body:
http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliation.html

Yoshihiro Ohba

(2012/08/02 14:37), Samuel Weiler wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
> 
>> What is the exact definition of "affiliation" in IETF?
> 
> Quoting from RFC3777:
> 
> "Rather than defining precise rules for how to define "affiliation", 
> the IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the 
> participants to make the process work."
> 
> As a community, we recognize that this could easily be gamed, and we 
> expect each other to behave reasonably.
> 
>> If a consultant who runs his/her own consulting company X is paid by 
>> his/her customer company Y for his/her IETF activities including 
>> NOMCOM activity, then what is his/her affiliation?
> 
> As a first pass answer, it's whatever the consultant would normally 
> show on a meeting registration badge.  Typically, I'd expect X.  But 
> the degree of funding is as extreme as you describe, it might still be 
> appropriate to step aside if two persons from Y are also chosen (or 
> ask one of them to step aside).
> 
> -- Sam
>