Andrew,
In Footnote of the draft it implies ISOC affiliates are included in
definition of Internet Society?
I'm pretty sure Chapters are not aware of this implication.
As they are independent bodies legally, subject to many jurisdictions
around the world. I wonder if a post to chapter list to make them aware and
contribute might be timely? Also Chapters cannot be bound by HR internal
verbage.
So handling this issue entirely via an open draft across the entire
community seems the authoritative way to go.
For non ISOC chapter folk. Chapters don't have a say in IETF funding
decisions at ISOC and all participants if they engage at IETF do so
individually. The relationship is similar to that with IETF with chapters
holding elections for up to 3 trustee seats at ISOC. Chapters are almost
all volunteer led, initiate and promote projects for an open Internet for
everyone, and increasingly receive small grants from ISOC to help keep the
wolf from the door. All IETFrs should consider their local chapter as their
home for the other stuff we want to have the Internet we want.
/C
On 18 August 2019 07:01:00 Andrew Sullivan <sullivan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi SM,
I'm writing in my role as the Internet Society's CEO.
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:41:32PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
There is the following in Section 3: "Apart from the roles described below,
the IETF and ISOC acknowledge that ISOC has no influence whatsoever on the
technical content of Internet Standards". The statement about "no
influence" is implausible given that last paragraph in Section 4 about the
participation of ISOC employees as, for example, document editors.
Your interpretation appears to elide the qualifying "Apart from the
roles…" part of the sentence in asserting implausibility. I'm unsure
what problem you see in the last ¶ of section 4, which explicitly
notes that ISOC employees participate in the process as individuals.
The Internet Society also has a staff policy about this, some remarks
about which I posted a while ago [1].
Does that mean that their employer will not file any IPR disclosure
if the case arises?
I don't understand this question in the context. But I should think
it obvious that, in the unlikely event the Internet Society started
taking out patents on software inventions we suddenly started making,
Internet Society staff would be obliged to disclose such things in
exactly the same way everyone else around the IETF does. Since
formally none of the participants in the IETF is acting as a
representative of anyone else (including their employers), ISOC
employees are no different. The purpose of the bit in section 3 in
the draft under discussion is to make that point explicitly.
Is that aligned with the "highest ethical standards" stated in
Section 7 of the contract [1] signed by the IETF LLC?
Is _what_ so aligned? I'm also unsure of the relevance of the
services agreement to which you refer, since it has nothing to do with
the technical content of Internet standards.
What is the relationship between RFC 2031 and this draft?
According to the header, RFC 2031 will be obsoleted by this draft.
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ugu6O_5tCnNzTUmVzIuhNFKPzbE
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO, Internet Society
sullivan@xxxxxxxx
+1 517 885 3587
