Hi Andrew,
At 05:51 AM 18-08-2019, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Sorry for the top post, but I'm on my mobile. I'm writing as ISOC staff.
Ok.
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.
The following paragraph is from
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ugu6O_5tCnNzTUmVzIuhNFKPzbE
"The fact that a large part of the funding of the IETF comes from ISOC,
however, and that the IETF's legal existence is (still) inside ISOC,
has sometimes led to discomfort about the ways staff operate within
the IETF. So last week, we adopted a new internal policy about staff
participation in the IETF. I won't post the whole thing here, mostly
because it's an HR policy and I don't think it's a good idea to burden
the IETF with such details, but it still seems worth highlighting a
few things that you might notice from ISOC staff in the near future
(because these are changes that will be visible)."
I gather that the HR policy is an internal policy.
The bright line gets blurry when affiliation is used as a matter of
convenience.
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.
I did not ask for a clarification of that.
Finally, yes, some ethical standards are obviously contextual. My
lawyer and my physician each have duties to me, but they are different duties.
The usual practice is to apply similar ethical standards throughout
an organization, e.g. an ABC policy. A lawyer could have an
additional set of rules of conduct to adhere to given his/her
professional responsibilities.
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?
The problem is that this draft is crafting an IETF statement for ISOC
employees only. That statement was not in the (previous)
RFC. Furthermore, there was a thread [1] in which explicit
boundaries became a topic in itself.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dzNIAlVcSfAFLCY5qTDPHLaVsHs
