> On Aug 18, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I agree on both points. We should treat ISOC employees like we treat employees from other companies. Bob > > 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 >> >> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
