I'm sorry, but I'm simply not seeing an issue here. > Otherwise, the involvement of ISOC's employees in the IETF standards > process (e.g., as document editors or in leadership positions) is as > individual contributors rather than on institutional grounds. That seems clear and complete to me. The IETF doesn't care what ISOC's internal policy is about ISOC staff participation in an external activity such as the IETF. The IETF simply states that if ISOC staff do participate, they do so as individual contributors. (Which incidentally means that they are subject to the IETF's IPR rules, but that is irrelevant to the present document, even if it might in some theoretical case be an issue for ISOC itself.) I also don't see any issue for the ISOC Chapters. They are simply associations of groups of ISOC *members*. I've been an ISOC member since 1992. That is simply irrelevant to my participation in the IETF. I don't see any reason to mention members or chapters here. Regards Brian On 19-Aug-19 05:39, S Moonesamy wrote: > 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 > >
