Larry, Is this as simple as adding to the "by submitting this draft, all authors confirm..." text? I know that is not "signing" but when an I-D is posted with your details on it as an author, you do get an automatic email so you have a chance to scream "it wasn't me." Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: 25 April 2014 19:25 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest > > Dave Crocker wrote: > > The proper model for such an environment is that everyone > > who participates is biased and has an agenda. > > Dave, thanks for engaging in this important topic. > > We all expect bias in standards organizations -- indeed it is a irreducible > factor in science and engineering and all human endeavors (and particularly > so in my profession, law!). I don't think anyone here is naïve about that. > > Please don't demand more than is possible out of an ethics policy. But also > please don't give up the moral high ground just because we all fall short of > moral perfection. There is a middle way: Disclosure of potential conflicts > of interest that allows each of us to judge those biases for ourselves. > > We should be expected to sign our contributions and disclose our potential > biases and conflicts of interest. Then the buyers will have reason to trust > the sellers. > > /Larry > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 10:46 AM > To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest > > On 4/20/2014 10:18 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > Such a disclosure requirement would further encourage everyone to > > trust and implement IETF specifications. > > > Probably not. > > Although the IETF has participation from the full range of academia, > research-ia, and industry, it's really and industry-driven environment, > since successful output of the IETF results in products and services. > > The proper model for such an environment is that everyone who participates > is biased and has an agenda. > > Seriously. Expecting anything is frankly naive. > > What mitigates that realistic view is balance among competing biases and > competing goals, and of course transparency in the processes and in the > details of what is produced. > > Intellectual property is really the only area of potential opacity that > should (and does) concern us. > > Trust in IETF work comes from timely utility, not abstract disclosures. > > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net