Hi Barry,
On Tue, Nov 19, 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.
Thanks for reading the letter. It's an important topic and one that ISOC HK and ISOC itself have weighed in on as well. Their statements, especially ISOC's at https://www.internetsociety.org/news/statements/2019/interim-injunction-ordered-by-hong-kong-high-court/ were part of why I took up a pen for this.
After I wrote this, I shared it (including the proposed affiliation) with the IAB. I felt that it was the appropriate affiliation because of the two references to IAB statements in the document (my status as CUHK alumnus was cited to indicate my own personal care for the situation in Hong Kong).
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:
There was some time pressure here, and one of those who later asked to sign (Wes) unfortunately came in too late to be included. I did not have time to ask whether Jeff or Martin wanted company affiliation included; I included it with Stephen because he sent me the affiliation he preferred when he asked to co-sign. The failure to include other affiliations for them is down to that time pressure, nothing more.
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.”
I hope you clarified it for them, and I hope this exchange clarifies it for any members of the IETF community who gathered the wrong impression. But the letter is not signed on behalf of the IAB, not on the IAB web site, and not attempting to present itself as the work of the whole IAB. It follows the same mechanisms we used in the past, including in previous Amicus briefs (such as that signed for the Wikimedia brief some time ago).
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.
I am sorry that this surprised you, but given your own previous service on the IAB, I am equally surprised that you had not seen similar usage before. It has been done multiple times since I re-joined 6 years ago. I also anticipate that it may happen again in the future, with similar process (passing the document to the IAB for review first, with affiliation).
regards,
Ted Hardie
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
