Actually Jorge, I would have to disagree with your discription. Neither
the IAB Chair nor the IESG Chair are executive roles. They are however,
definitely leadership roles.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/16/14, 5:38 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
The issue is not participation, engagement and cooperation which I
consider vital for a healthy and continuously development of the
Internet. The issue IMHO is the tag labeling of a group of individuals
that perform on an executive role and how the labeling and some
statements are perceived and interpreted particularly by mainstream
media in a context where Internet Governance (widely misinterpreted by
itself ) is on the forefront nowadays.
You may not see it because you are in the midst of it. My concern is
with the "I* Leaders" label and how and where what you say can be easily
taken out context and grossly misinterpreted without exercising some
restraint and better choice of words.
I'm not against Jari and Russ participation and having them share what's
going on at IETF and explore opportunities for more and better cooperation.
I'd strongly recommend to get rid of the "I* Leaders" moniker.
Regards
-Jorge
On Feb 16, 2014, at 2:38 PM, John Curran <jcurran@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jcurran@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Jorge -
This particular group of folks gathered and received updates on
various activities
going on... e.g. Jari and Russ spoke of perpass. It is a
coordinating function; so
we know about major initiatives going on and can support and/or
avoid conflicts
as appropriate.
The only reason for the post-meeting statements (in my view) is
simply because
people were unaware that these periodic gatherings were going on,
and indicated
that we should be make such more visible.
Note also that there quite a bit of focus on making sure the most
recent statement
simply said what happened, i.e. a gathering of folks received a
series of updates
from each other on a list of topics of potentially mutual interest.
As a result, I now realize that W3C is having its 20th
anniversary; that ICANN's
various strategy panels have been meeting, and that the "Brazil
meeting" is now
know as “Netmundial” and has its own website
<http://netmundial.br>. I don't
really know what the other leaders (for lack of a better term)
took away, but
would hope that Jari, Russ, etc. found it useful context and
background for their
IETF efforts. I guess that one option would be for the
"leaders" from the IETF
community not to attend such gatherings, but that seems to be a
rather extreme
response to take due to lack of a better term than "leader" (and
one hopes it is
unnecessary so long as care is taken to make nothing more of the
meetings than
what they are - a gathering of folks hearing updates so we can
better coordinate)
FYI,
/John
On Feb 16, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jmamodio@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I agree that "spokesperson" is not either the appropriate term. And
leader is far far away to be representative of their roles and positions.
True that on their role they "lead" the organizations they are
involved with but the Internet community does not follow them as
*leaders*, particularly the CEOs of some organizations such as ICANN,
ARIN, etc, that are just paid employees to play a specific executive
role.
I'm really starting to dislike this effort of reverting the bottom-up
process by a group that is starting to behave like a dictatorial
junta making public statements that can be considered or interpreted
as representative of the Internet community and particular
organizations such as IETF.
They are no spokesperson, nor leaders, just they are what they are
the CEO of ICANN, the Chair of IETF, the CEO of ARIN, etc.
My .02
Jorge
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Folks, as John Klensin said, the reason we do not say
"spokesperson" is that our leadership do not speak for us. We
only speak as a group through the consensus process. So the
term "spokesperson" is simply inaccurate.
The term "leader" makes sense as a generic because there were a
number of organizations, with different leadership structures,
some not involving the same consensus process that exists in the
IETF. So we couldn't for example say "chair," because that term
wouldn't apply to all the people who signed the statement.
I realize that the term "leader" has its own set of connotations,
but I don't know of a better word to use. There is no word that
we could use that would convey to someone who is not already
familiar with IETF process what we mean. Representative is no
good for the same reason spokesperson is no good. Avatar
doesn't really work either.
I think it's better to just accept that the language is
imprecise, and think carefully about what is that we might be
objecting to, and whether the objection _really_ makes sense in
the context. I guess there's about zero chance that this won't
get discussed to death, and that's fine, but I don't think
there's a knob to turn here.