Hi Barry, I didn't co-sign the letter, but frankly I would have (with affiliation) if I wasn't quite as busy when it was put forth by Ted. If you're suggesting that IAB and IESG members can't ever use their affiliation unless it's on a document approved by the entire body, I'm going to strongly disagree. I think most people know the difference between a statement of a member of Parliament and one by the entire body. This is not an employment relationship, where putting a company next to your name does have some impact. I think we as a community want our leadership to be more like the former than the latter. This idea that the leadership bodies are homogenous and speak with a single voice is IMHO damaging and leads to situations where it's perceived to be us-vs-them -- by both the members of those bodies and the greater community. Cheers, > On 19 Nov 2019, at 2:42 pm, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Perhaps some of you have seen that Ted Hardie posted an open letter on > the Hong Kong high court’s injunction on Internet speech: > https://medium.com/@ted.ietf/an-open-letter-on-the-hong-kong-high-court-injunction-on-internet-speech-7f0048df2f54 > The letter is signed by Ted and is co-signed by three other IAB > members, each signing as an individual: the letter is not from the IAB > and doesn’t claim to be. > > Nevertheless, note that all signatories identify themselves as > “Member, Internet Architecture Board”, and three of the four do not > list their company affiliations. This has two effects: > > 1. By being signed by four IAB members who are identified primarily as > IAB members, the letter *appears* to be from the IAB. I have passed > this by three non-IETF friends, asking them who they think the letter > is from, and all three said, “The Internet Architecture Board.” > > 2. By using “Member, Internet Architecture Board” this way, those > signing the letter are effectively (whether by intent or not) using > their IAB positions to gain credibility for their personal opinions. > > I think this is wildly inappropriate. I think those of us in IETF > leadership should be scrupulously careful NOT to call out our IETF > affiliations this way unless we are speaking for the organization. > The fact that the letter refers to things that have been published > with IAB consensus doesn’t change the fact that the *letter* does not > have IAB consensus, and we must be careful not to give the impression > that it does. > > I’ve discussed this with Ted, who thinks that there’s nothing wrong > with how the letter was signed and posted. That disturbs me. I tried > to let it go, but I’m sufficiently bothered by it that I felt the need > to take it to the community. This is that. Ted tells me that all IAB > members were invited to co-sign the letter, and that none brought up a > concern about the use of the “Member, IAB” affiliation. > > As you think about this and — I hope — discuss it, please keep this in mind: > > - I’m NOT talking about the content of the message and whether I do or > don’t agree with it. That’s not the point. I hope that as we discuss > this we do NOT go into the content, the politics, and so on. Let’s > please keep this highly charged issue out of IETF discussions. > > - I’m NOT looking to beat Ted up here; what I want is for this not to > happen again, and I hope the ensuing discussion supports that. > > -- > Barry > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
