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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

I didn't co-sign the letter, but frankly I would have (with affiliation) if I wasn't quite as busy when it was put forth by Ted.

If you're suggesting that IAB and IESG members can't ever use their affiliation unless it's on a document approved by the entire body, I'm going to strongly disagree. 

I think most people know the difference between a statement of a member of Parliament and one by the entire body. This is not an employment relationship, where putting a company next to your name does have some impact.

I think we as a community want our leadership to be more like the former than the latter. This idea that the leadership bodies are homogenous and speak with a single voice is IMHO damaging and leads to situations where it's perceived to be us-vs-them -- by both the members of those bodies and the greater community.

Cheers,


> On 19 Nov 2019, at 2:42 pm, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/