(top post) Andrew, In part because we so often reach the same conclusion about such things even though our reasoning is often different, and because we have both been on, and chaired, the IAB, I'm feeling a need to respond to your note on a subject I normally would have stayed out of. In case it makes a difference, I am glad a note got sent, am largely in agreement with its content, and am very relieved that the order was clarified appropriately. I also have trouble getting to Barry's "wildly inappropriate", but I do think the signatures and affiliation listings, without qualification, represent, at best, poor judgment. I also think you are being a bit inconsistent in ways that reflect on that opinion. Specifically,... * The level of understanding in governments and communities outside ones related to Internet technology about what the IAB is and the role it plays differ widely, from "never heard of them" (perhaps modified by "sounds like an important body") to confusion with the role and influence of the Internet Activities Board in the pre-ICANN, pre-Kobe, and pre-commercialization periods. The perception of what the affiliations might mean may differ with different understandings of what the IAB is all about. I believe almost no one outside our immediate community knows that formal IAB statements are almost always endorsed with "for the IAB" or similar language (itself, IIR, a moderately recent innovation). Nor would they know whether the IAB has a dozen members, more than that, or perhaps only four, so it would be impossible for them to assess whether the letter was signed by all or a majority of the IAB (in either of which cases whether it was an official IAB statement might be hair-splitting) or a by a relatively small fraction of the IAB possibly speaking only for themselves. I also suggest that having all signatories identified as "Member, Internet Architecture Board" reinforces any accidental impression that the IAB is the originator of the note whether all IAB members signed or endorsed it or not. It would have been a happy coincidence had at least one signatory been listed with a different, non-IAB, affiliation (e.g., "Jane Doe, CEO BigInternetCorp") because that would have made any inferences that the letter was an IAB statement much less likely. * Since taking on the role of ISOC CEO, you have taken the lead in making certain the community (and onlookers) understand the difference between your personal opinions and an organizational position for which you are the spokesperson. I observe that your note to the IETF list starts with a disclaimer consistent with that distinction. In the case of this letter, while I don't believe that any of the signatories were deliberately trying to mislead (and I note Ted's comments about time pressure and assume that, had there been more time, this might have been handled a bit differently), I also believe that, even without your example, most of us know how to write phrases like "for identification", "not a formal IAB position", "in individual capacities only", and so on. From my perspective as a former IAB Member and Chair, I think that it would have represented better judgment (and, again, been consistent with the example you have set) to attach such clarifying wording in this case. * I don't think Barry's message implied that the signatories were trying to give the impression that they were speaking for the IETF, the so-called Internet Technical Community, or any broader group (including, for example, the Internet Society or its membership or leadership). At least in part because of general ignorance and some confusion about the organizational relationships involved (see above), I doubt that many people would make inferences beyond "speaking for the IAB" unless they thought the IAB runs the Internet. I think that is exactly what Barry said, no matter how anecdotal his evidence. Regardless of what the "very point" of the IAB is, we certainly agree that is should not be required to have community consensus (rough or otherwise) before taking a position like the one this letter represents. On the other hand, I don't believe the IAB (at least post-Kobe) ever makes decisions or statements without at least a general sense of consensus _within the IAB_. That should be true whether that consensus is about a particular position or about a particular IAB member or two having views sufficiently aligned with the IAB consensus that the IAB delegates them with the responsibility and authority to take on representational roles and to speak for the IAB in those roles. So I don't see what your comments about speaking for the IETF have to do with this. I also don't believe we have reached the point in which individual members of the IAB (or even four of them) can speak for the IAB without internal IAB discussion and consensus. But, again, AFAICT, none of them have made the claim that they spoken for the IAB or represent IAB consensus. * Finally, as to "I have this view and, by the way, my community appointed me to this August Body precisely so that I would have views and say them", I am unable to find any language in either the IAB Charter or the most recent IAB role description to the Nomcom that says, precisely or otherwise, that people are appointed to the IAB because they have views and will say them, especially without limits on the topics of those views. In particular, I do not see the holding of views based on deep expertise on policy matters and their implications in the description of qualifications given to the Nomcom (although I would hope some IAB members would have those skills and some statements in the description are consistent with that hope). More important, I see nothing in those documents that encourages members of the IAB to express their individual views on subjects while identifying their views specifically as members of the IAB. Of course, it doesn't prohibit their doing so either -- to a very significant degree, we rely on individual responsibility and good judgment. So, while I don't see this as earthshaking and cannot get to "wildly inappropriate" in the absence of clear implications that people were speaking for the community (or at least for the IAB) or to intentionally mislead others into thinking they were, it seems to me that most (although certainly not all) IAB members over the years have understood the distinction between speaking for the IAB or in their IAB roles and expressing their personal views and have understood mechanisms for making that distinction clear. I see lack of care about that distinction as bad for the IAB and poor judgment wrt the extended IETF community and the IAB's many audiences. And, if, as Ted suggests, things just like this have happened many times before, I hope that one result of this discussion is that it will not be taken as endorsement for similar things happening in the future. best, john --On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 08:46 -0500 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > I am an employee (CEO) of the Internet Society and I am > emphatically not speaking for it. As a matter of full > disclosure, however, the Internet Society also issued a > statement in respect of the situation in Hong Kong, in > consultation with the ISOC chapter in Hong Kong. > > I was both a member and chair of the IAB for a period of time. > During that time, the much-ballyhooed "IANA transition" > happened. I had plenty of occasions to speak about various > things going on during that time, and I quite often used my > affiliation with the IAB under such circumstances. It is with > that background in mind that I send this note. > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 02:42:04PM +0800, Barry Leiba wrote: > >> 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 am entirely unwilling to speculate about worldwide > interpretation trends of texts based on the sample, "Three > friends of Barry Leiba under uncontrolled questioning." > Please don't stand on that kind of sample as anything other > than the worst kind of anecdata. > >> 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. > > Or else they are presenting evidence that a community that the > audiece might otherwise respect decided that these were people > who had a thing or two to say about how the Internet works. > That seems to me important because … > >> I think this is wildly inappropriate. > > … I think it is wildly appropriate. The _very point_ of the > IAB is that it is not subject to consensus rules that the IETF > is. I think it would indeed be inappropriate for people to > use their affiliation with the IESG this way: the IESG _does_ > speak for the IETF. But the IAB does not, and that > not-speaking-for role is in fact part of the _point_ of having > the IAB at all. > > If IAB members cannot tell people, "I have this view and, by > the way, my community appointed me to this August Body > precisely so that I would have views and say them," then I am > mystified what we want the IAB for except simple > constitutional duties. If the IAB exists to be the Governor > General[1] of the IETF, then we should change its charter. > But I don't think that's the IAB job today, and I think its > members need to be able to be clear under what title they have > an opinion. > > Best regards, > > A > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada
