--On Saturday, April 26, 2014 06:50 -0700 S Moonesamy
<sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Larry,
> At 11:25 25-04-2014, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> 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.
>...
> I chose three companies from various parts of the world.
>...
> They all mentioned ethics. I assume that companies which
> consider themselves as reputable would ensure that their
> employees and people under contract with them will follow
>...
Hi.
I think there is a useful discussion in this area that the IETF
should be having. I also think that discussion is easily
diverted into ratholes, whether through good intentions or a
desire to head off any action.
Referring back to comments I made early in this thread or what
lead to it, I don't think we need more procedural rules here.
One the reasons for that is that an attempt to get to them leads
us straight into the hairsplitting debate into which the latest
notes seem to point.
I think what I believe was Larry's core point is well-taken: a
large fraction of us have already committed to various
statements of professional ethics and the rest of us should, as
a matter of professionalism and good relationships, behave as if
we had. I'm also not particularly concerned about the
situations in which an employee of Company XYZ is promoting a
protocol in which Company XYZ is a known advocate or stands to
profit. Most of the important elements of those situations are
covered by our IPR rules and most of the rest are pretty
obvious. Where I think we have a potential problem involves
situations in which the core work to produce a standard (or
other specification) may be going on in an industry consortium
whose membership and participation (including, e.g., consulting
and seconded personnel relationship) are not obvious.
If the work of such a consortium is public or generally
available for use without specific licensing, there are no IPR
issues (and disclosures probably identify the consortium, not
the contributors). But suppose the IETF is asked to approve the
results, an AD sponsors a document, the RFC Editor is asked to
publish them or parts of them in _any_ stream, IANA registries
are created or used, expert reviewers are appointed and review
requests, or similar actions are proposed or taken. I think
the community should then know involvements that might be
associated with biases or conflicts of assumptions, and that
those disclosures should occur as a matter of personal integrity
and ethics.
john