Hi Barry and Ietf,
IMO any letter should be clear/careful about objectives and misunderstandings, more below;
> 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.
>
> 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.
It needs to clarify that it is not signed by IAB or by any special committee,
>
> 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.”
I agree
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
The letter can be gaining more value by the way it is used not the way it was written. Therefore, who writes it needs to make sure it is used in its right value and not more.
>
> 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.
I think you have a point, but I think the most important is that they should always state in any letter when it is IAB and when it is not IAB.
They need to show the IAB voice and value or no value.
> 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.
Agree
>
> I’ve discussed this with Ted, who thinks that there’s nothing wrong
> with how the letter was signed and posted.
>
> I’ve discussed this with Ted, who thinks that there’s nothing wrong
> with how the letter was signed and posted.
I makes misunderstanding and may be misused. It is better that if any member writes any thing just writes small statement saying this is not IAB, therefore, the letter was wrong in not mentioning that it was not from IAB.
> 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.
> 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.
Thanks for this message. IMHO, if leaders sign statements they should always think first what they are not saying before what they are saying, because they are leaders and they may be used wrongly.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
Yes I hope it can be avoided by a new simple procedure. Many like discussions because we want to make things simple, better and with best used.
Best Regards,
AB
