On 10/13/2013 1:02 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us.
I would guess that nobody (almost nobody?)in the IETF objects to I*
leadership representing our views at such things;
For at least one of the items in the signed statement, there is no basis
for claiming to know what the IETF's views are.
When the IETF's views are clear, then of course having folks accurately
represent those views publicly is dandy.
The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I*
leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are
there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they
cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do
that.
Here's where reality runs over theory. For mass-market public
statements, such nuance is entirely lost. It is therefore misguided to
believe that careful qualification will alter what is perceived by the
public.
Lest anyone dismiss this concern with something along the lines of "we
can't be responsible for other people's failure to listen carefully,"
I'll note that proactively anticipating and dealing with such likely
failures is exactly the responsibility of anyone claiming to speak for
an organization publicly.
There's even professional media relations training typically given to
executives, for just this purpose.
So, for instance, in signing a statement, they need to say "John Smith,
current Ixx chair, signing as an individual", or something like that - to make
it clear to readers that their signature does not bind the organization as a
whole.
Yeah, but the likely benefit of that isn't very high, given the strong
predilection some folk have for stoking the political fires when the
topic is already highly politicized. For example:
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions-abandon-the-us-government/
Again, the nature of playing in such a sandbox -- as the Montevideo
Statement attempts to do -- requires robust effort both to be accurate
in what is said, but also to protect against misinterpretation.
Montevideo Statement seems to have accomplished neither.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net