Hi, Again, with my ISOC hat on. On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:39:48AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote: > I gather that the HR policy is an internal policy. Indeed, it is, and it is nowhere a part of the draft under discussion, so I don't understand what the problem is _for this draft_. > The bright line gets blurry when affiliation is used as a matter of > convenience. That seems to me to be implying something rather unpleasant without coming out and making a claim. If you are claiming that there is some problem, I would appreciate it if you would come out and say what problem you think there is. Otherwise, I think you are smearing the character of Internet Society staff participating in the IETF, without any justification. I don't especially care if people deprecate my character, but I don't think the rest of the Internet Society staff ought to be smeared that way. > > 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. It seemed to me you did. But perhaps if you'd state plainly what concern you have instead of asking apparently loaded or rhetorical questions, it would be possible to address whatever concern you have. > 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.. Yes, and in this case Internet Society employees who are working as part of the community on the technical content of IETF documents work according to the same rules as anyone else participating in the IETF; and Internet Society employees who are providing service to the IETF under a services contract work according to the rules in the services contract and high ethical standards to which the Internet Society staff attempt to adhere in general. Both of these are in the maximal interest of the IETF. It would appear, therefore, that the usual practice is in effect, and unless you have something specific to say about how that isn't the case I think there is no change needed to the draft under discussion. > The problem is that this draft is crafting an IETF statement for ISOC > employees only. No, it is making explicit something that was possibly implicit in RFC 2031. Speaking with my staff-member hat on, I will say that I think the explicit clarity is useful. > there was a thread [1] in which explicit boundaries became a topic in > itself. > > 1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dzNIAlVcSfAFLCY5qTDPHLaVsHs That reference isn't very helpful, since it points to a message from Ted Hardie having nothing to do with this topic. My guess is you might be referring to the message exchange between Mike StJohns and me starting at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iVPkh0Vn49X9jZRjs6XRMAha2pQ. I was under the impression that we had aired his suggestion, and while Mike seemed to think that at least one ISOC staff member (me) should either never participate as an individual, or should at least never participate as an individual in process discussions (he made this plain at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kSycGXCHUPbuOzi0DqhiIFm6nPo). I concluded that I disagreed with him; I note that the other postings in the (sub)thread appeared to as well. Are you now saying you think Mike's position (either 2 or 2') is correct? (And if so, could you just state it plainly, please?) Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan President & CEO, Internet Society sullivan@xxxxxxxx +1 517 885 3587
