HI, I would have expected something similar to what we do in the IETF when a WG chair responds to a comment stating Name WG xxx Chair as Individual Roni Even AVTcore co-chair as Individual > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:19 AM > To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > Cc: IETF discussion list > Subject: Re: "An open letter" signed by some IAB members > > Hi Jordi, > > Yes, I agree that clarity here is good. However, "Member of IAB" is pretty > specific, just as "Member of Parliament" is specific; it is clearly distinguishing > the part from the whole. > > There are mitigating factors here (as discussed) where it could have been > more clear, and I appreciate the need for honest attempts to be as clear as > possible. What I was trying to get at was that I suspect that a large part of the > problem is that a letter that is only signed by members of a board can easily > give the impression that it's from that board -- something that others have > noticed too. Avoiding that impression is good, but that doesn't mean we > should generalise this instance into a rule about all mentions of affiliation. > > Cheers, > > > > On 19 Nov 2019, at 5:09 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > I know is not always easy. I use some times my company name and even > email instead of a private one even if I'm speaking on my own personal > capacity ... I feel that we all in general, should clear state in which capacity we > are speaking. Is good, nice and convient to say "I work here and volunteer > here" as well, of course, but if clarified if it is an IAB (in this case) view of > personal one. > > > > However, in all the cases that you mention, the solution that I mention, > makes it very clear. In case all the folks that sign are on their own, a footnote > "stating it" or alternatively a similar text, below each of the signatures (when > there is mixture of cases). > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > > > > El 19/11/19 17:00, "ietf en nombre de Mark Nottingham" <ietf- > bounces@xxxxxxxx en nombre de mnot@xxxxxxxx> escribió: > > > > I suspect part of the issue here is that the letter is signed *only* by IAB > members, not mixed with others - and so I agree that such a clarification > would have been helpful. > > > > Question: Would people have felt such a clarification were necessary if it > these names were mixed in with non-IAB (and non-IETF) names and > affiliations? > > > > And, would people have had an issue if it were signed only by one person > who used their affiliation (as a *member* of the IAB, not the whole)? > > > > To put it another way -- sometimes I give talks and mention that I'm a > member of the IAB, and sometimes I omit other affiliations that I hold or > have held (for example, it's rare that I need to trot out that I served as > president of my local primary school for several years). Are people seriously > suggesting that this is out of line? > > > > Cheers, > > > > > >> On 19 Nov 2019, at 4:48 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> While I believe that anyone has the right to state his position at any > organization, never mind is paid or not (unless a contractual clause disallows > that), I think that when it is not an official position of that organization, it > should be done stating clearly "that is a personal opinion". > >> > >> Something in the line of a footnote clearly indicating that this letter is not > the "official position of the IAB" (for this specific case). > >> > >> Otherwise, tomorrow, a few of us can sign a similar letter showing below > our names "Member, IETF", and who is reading it, probably will not recognize > that we aren't "empowered" to sign as IETF, as we are just a bunch of > participants, but not speaking from the IETF. > >> > >> And so, clearly agree with Barry here. > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Jordi > >> @jordipalet > >> > >> > >> > >> El 19/11/19 14:42, "ietf en nombre de Barry Leiba" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx > en nombre de barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió: > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ********************************************** > >> IPv4 is over > >> Are you ready for the new Internet ? > >> http://www.theipv6company.com > >> The IPv6 Company > >> > >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a > criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, > even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be > considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to > inform about this communication and delete it. > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > > IPv4 is over > > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > > http://www.theipv6company.com > > The IPv6 Company > > > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a > criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, > even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be > considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to > inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
