> Il 20 novembre 2019 10:40 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > But it *is* subject to consensus within itself, and there was not IAB > consensus to publish the letter. My point is that those signing and > posting it should have been more careful about making it *clear* to > *non-IETF people* that they're giving personal opinion and are not > speaking for the IAB. We should not assume that outsiders would > understand that (and see more about the signatures below). I have been attending the IETF for just two years and I am still trying to understand the mechanisms in full, but this is why perhaps I can provide a reasonable "non-IETF" view (speaking personally and without offense to anyone). In full honesty, when I read the letter, my perception was: 1. this is a pretty strong move for an organization that claims a global mandate and a purely technical role, and as such should refrain from entering into political matters and national affairs; (yes, the authors are commenting as individuals on a specific Internet-related issue, but outside of this community this will still be perceived as "the IETF taking a position on a hot geopolitical matter", and I stress "the IETF", as the difference between IETF, IRTF, IESG and IAB is arcane for almost everyone outside of this list, even in other Internet governance organizations, so if the distinction between individual and organizational capacity is lost, this will be perceived as an "IETF position") 2. it looks like there has been an internal argument and about half of the IAB supports this statement while the rest opposes its release, otherwise this would have been published as an IAB statement. If these two points (as I guess) were not what the authors meant to communicate to the world, perhaps they could have chosen a different way to present the letter. For example, it is actually quite common, in this kind of letter, to solicit signatures by selected people from different backgrounds and affiliations before releasing it, exactly to avoid the impression that the letter represents the view of a specific organization or community. Also, either you just list all names without any affiliation, or you list names and affiliations that gave permission to be associated with the letter, or you add terms like "in personal capacity" or "not speaking for the organization" near any affiliation that is mentioned without being represented by the letter, or in the text whenever it refers to "we"; and the more so if the content is sensitive. I really do not see other alternatives. I hope that this can explain why I find Barry's concerns quite justified, when he refers to how this could be perceived outside of this community. By the way, I was also surprised by the comparison between the IAB and a Parliament, because my understanding was that IAB members were not selected for their personal views and were not there to advocate these views against different ones, but were meant to be a pool of competence and experience that would produce the best possible common opinion. Apologies for getting this wrong, but I am sure this could be another common misunderstanding. -- Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange vittorio.bertola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
