Hi, Sorry for the top post, but I'm on my mobile. I'm writing as ISOC staff. I am not an author or editor of the draft, so I'm not really in a position to state why the text is as it is. But I don't anyway see where the text includes any internal policy. Maybe you could say more. I similarly don't understand the blurring of the bright line, so perhaps you could say how. I am struggling, also, to understand what the possible issue in the future could be. So I just don't know what there is to clarify about the IPR rules.. Finally, yes, some ethical standards are obviously contextual. My lawyer and my physician each have duties to me, but they are different duties. It seems as though there is some implicit model you have in mind of some threat or problem here, but I can't understand what it is by implication. Perhaps you could state it plainly? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan President & CEO of the Internet Society Please excuse my clumbsy thums On August 18, 2019 12:57:46 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > At 11:00 PM 17-08-2019, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> I'm writing in my role as the Internet Society's CEO. > > Ok. > >> 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]. > > My reading of RFC 2031 is that it describes a > main boundary condition without getting in the > internal policies of ISOC. One of the changes in > this draft is that it includes some parts of an > internal policy related to employees of an > organization which the IETF is expected to > disregard. Why is it so important for the last > paragraph of Section 4 to be included? > > Commenting about implausibility, there is the > following in the message which was referenced: > "The overall idea is to try to draw a bright line between being > employed at the Internet Society, and being part > of the formal machinery of the IETF". In my > opinion, the last paragraph of Section 4 also blurs that bright line. > >> 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. > > In my opinion, it is better to have some clarity > now instead of ignoring the difficult questions > and facing them if there is ever an issue in future. > >> 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. > > Are ethical standards contextual? > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy
