Hi, [Same role] I don't see a footnote in the draft. Perhaps you could give me a better hint about the problematic text? In any case, I'm not the editor of the draft and can't alter it. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan President & CEO of the Internet Society Please excuse my clumbsy thums On August 18, 2019 13:02:42 Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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
