Subject: What is the IETF? -- A note of caution

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:34:38 -0800

As a representative of of one of the co-hosts for this meeting, I am 
equally gratified and terrorized to have the distinction hosting the 
largest IETF meeting to date (I fully expect this meeting to be 
surpassed soon).  Fred's summary of the diversity of the IETF was 
truly impressive.

But in retrospect, one thing he said bothered me greatly.  He 
mentioned there were representatives of some five hundred different 
organizations at this meeting.  That too is impressive.  But it's 
that word "representative" I find disquieting.

We are here not as corporate representatives, but as individuals 
committed to building the best Internet we can.  Becoming part of a 
working group means you leave your company badge at the door.  As the 
Internet has become more and more a commercial place, and the setting 
for business and commerce, the pressure to bend the way the Internet 
works to one's particular advantage at the expense of others 
increases.

This is not part of our heritage.  It is not part of our Tao.  We 
come together because the Internet belongs to no one country, or 
organization.  Rather it exists for all.  We can look forward to a 
Net which not only spans the Earth, but gives every person in every 
country, the opportunity and the means to learn from any other 
regardless of their home, their beliefs or their physical 
capabilities.

It is a wonderful thing.  And we must remember it is our 
responsibility to preserve and enhance it for those who will come 
after.

-- 

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   If we admire the Net, should not a burden of proof fall on those
   who would change the basic assumptions that brought it about in
   the first place?
   -- David Brin, "The Transparent Society", 1998
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:06:57 -0600

> We are here not as corporate representatives, but as individuals 

He also introduced the ADs as "<name> from <employer>" after the IAB
had been introduced solely by name.  Throw the bum out!   :-)

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:42:51 +0700

Hello:

(I copy this to the poisson list, since I am somehow blocked from 
the IETF list).

I am fully understand what your concern is. But, 
- what should those "corporate representative" do? 
- where should they go?

best regards,

-- 
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
--- the father of internet (al gore) for IAB -- NOMCOM2000

---

From: "Kyle Lussier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:11:25 -0500

> But it's that word "representative" I find disquieting.

I second everything you said John.

How does the IETF prevent a "RAMBUS" type scenario where
a company sits in on IETF, copies the technologies,
patents them, waits for everyone to adopt them, and then
sues everyone for infringement?

This is very concerning to me.  I want so much to go hog 
wild with new ideas and work for IETF, but I don't want 
the work to be thrown against me in courts by a hidden 
observer claiming the work to be proprietary.  The work
done in IETF should be unpatentable... 

the question is.. is it?

I am sure it's been discussed before, can someone point 
me to how the "RAMBUS" scenario is prevented?

Regards,

Kyle Lussier

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:07:52 -0500

> had been introduced solely by name.

I don't like the word "representatives" either.  

But employers who support employees' IESG and IAB participation certainly 
deserve to be recognized, since such an employee will spend a tremendous 
amount of "work time", and a non-trivial amount of travel money, on IESG 
or IAB activities.  

Keith

---

From: Ari Ollikainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:18:24 -0800

At 3:34 PM -0800 12/14/00, John  W Noerenberg II wrote:
>working group means you leave your company badge at the door.  As 
>the Internet has become more and more a commercial place, and the 
>setting for business and commerce, the pressure to bend the way the 
>Internet works to one's particular advantage at the expense of 
>others increases.
>

	So let's change the way we're identified on the badges to
	NOT include organizational identity. And NOT include the
	organizational affiliation(s) on the published attendees list.

	As an adjunct to the above suggestion, how about ISOC offering
	to provide e-mail forwarding (ala IEEE) for IETF participants
	after some number of consecutive meetings attended...

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:22:07 -0500

> sues everyone for infringement?

They can't copy-and-patent the technology unless they have sufficiently
deep pockets to deal with the inevitable prior-art lawsuits.
--
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:29:39 -0800 (PST)

Did we not just have this whole debate on the Poisson list or is this a
new flavor?

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen 
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972
GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]
URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:49:48 -0500

--On Thursday, 14 December, 2000 19:06 -0600 Matt Crawford
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> mentioned there were representatives of some five hundred
>> different  organizations at this meeting.  That too is
>> impressive.  But it's  that word "representative" I find
>> disquieting.
>>... 
> He also introduced the ADs as "<name> from <employer>" after
> the IAB had been introduced solely by name.  Throw the bum out!
> :-)

Folks,

There is obviously a tension on the subject of company
affiliations and support, and there probably are no perfect
solutions.  I'd like to make a few observations about it, with
the understanding that these are very much personal opinions and
not any sort of consensus policy.

First, I don't spend a lot of time planning exactly what words
I'm going to use at a plenary, and I assume that Fred doesn't
either.  Both of us have many other things to do during the week
of IETF, things that I think are more important.  I'll worry a
great deal when and if the community depends on the IAB and/or
the IESG to produce careful, scripted, presentations.  We don't
coordinate the backgrounds on our slides, and we don't coordinate
the language we use, and differences in tone or words are more
likely the result of personal style or momentary impulse rather
than anything from which someone should deduce deep meaning.

I really didn't think about the IAB introducing ourselves without
employer affiliations.  It just sort of happened, and I'm sure we
have identified our employers in the past.  If the community has
a strong preference, we can try to remember to follow it, but,
really...

People who participate in IETF --whether in working groups or on
the IAB or IESG-- are doing so as individual experts.  I've
periodically felt that we should have a "leave your company
affiliations at the door" banner.  

But, even without "representing" anyone (that is not a word I
would have chosen had I thought about it, but see above), where
we work and what we do in our day jobs inevitably impacts our
experience and perspective.  For example, since I left research
settings, I've worked for carriers, but never in operational
situations.  That carrier background gives me some perspectives
that I wouldn't have if I had a background with, e.g., equipment
manufacturers.  And people who work for manufacturers almost
certain have perspectives that I lack.  That doesn't mean that
I'm "representing" my company, or carriers in general, in the
sense that "representation" was taken.  But it may be something
the community would want to know about, especially if I make a
comment that implies that I might actually know something.

It is also probably more important that people understand
affiliations and perspectives of the IESG than of the IAB, since
the latter normally has no decision power in the standards
process.

And, as someone pointed out, companies who support participation
of people --especially without expecting much of company-specific
and short-term value back-- deserve as much credit and
acknowledgement as those who, e.g., sponsor parts of meetings.
And we typically don't acknowledge that contribution well enough.

I don't think company names on badges are harmful, and they do
help us identify each other (otherwise, we could carry the
principle to the limits and leave the names off too, replacing
them with randomly-assigned numbers).

Any chance we can get back to substantive technical work now?

    john

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:40:31 -0800

John:

Thanks for your wise comments; I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I find 
myself agreeing with most of the people in this thread, who seem to think 
they are disagreeing with each other. As the person who apparently caused 
this dust-up, I feel I should add a note. The remainder of this note is 
addressed to my friends, those who work in the IETF. It is my opinion. Send 
flames privately.

I mention the corporate relationships of the Area Directors for a very 
simple reason. I think the companies that contribute the time of their 
employees to this activity are worthy of note. Speaking for myself, my 
employer has given me carte blanche, with only one proviso: when I travel 
somewhere on IETF business (which I don't even have to clear with my 
supervisor), they would like me to advise the local sales office and be 
available to visit a customer or two. Beyond that, for five years they have 
essentially underwritten my travel, equipped my office, and given my time 
and services to the IETF, cold stop. They even put together a special 
policy for my discussions with the media: Cisco employees, by company 
policy, do not speak with reporters except in the presence of a PR person, 
but I am required only to *copy* a PR person on comments I make to the 
media. Couple that with the opportunity costs - there is a lot of good work 
I could have been doing for my employer that I didn't do because I worked 
on the IETF instead, and I have some friends who have gotten angry with me 
for not doing one thing or another for them - and you can see that in my 
person Cisco is donating several hundred thousand dollars a year to the 
Internet. That is proportionally true of every Area Director and every IAB 
member, and of their companies. I think it is worthy of note.

I'll mention one person in this context who takes my breath away. Leslie 
Daigle is a private consultant. When she has asked, which is not often, I 
have underwritten her travel from a budget that the ISOC makes available to 
the IETF Chair. But for the most part, the time she spends on IAB and ICANN 
activities is her gift to the Internet community, one she makes with 
scarcely a comment and certainly without regret. I think that is worthy of 
note.

And let's not forget that while we come as individuals and contribute as 
individuals, our employers pay for that. I have worked for employers that 
required me to do IETF activities after hours, and considered attendance at 
meetings as boondoggles to be closely managed, and I have worked for more 
sensible employers, but in each case, my employer has underwritten the 
cost. That is not something to lightly brush aside.

I want you to think for a moment about other corporate benefits that apply. 
Yesterday morning, Jun Murai, Steve Coya, myself, and a fair set of 
supporting characters met to discuss planning for the IETF in Yokohama two 
years hence. In Japan, the cost of coffee (200-400 yen a cup) and snacks 
such as we routinely put in the hall is exorbitant. The WIDE Project is 
putting together a list of corporate sponsors to cover it - and companies 
are tripping over each other for their chance at the opportunity. I am 
frequently asked for time for companies to market themselves to this 
audience in one way or another, and I think you can guess what response 
they receive. But in Japan, there will be a sign on the table that says 
"goodies sponsored by the so-and-so corporation." I hope you won't whine 
about it. If you want to, I'll recommend that the Secretariat put vending 
machines in the hallways.

So, yes, perhaps I used the word "represent" inadvisably, and if so I crave 
your forgiveness. I certainly agree that we are here to make the Internet 
run well, not to advance corporate agendas, (although I have to tell you 
that corporations often have some notion of what it means for the Internet 
to run well). But to never mention the corporate involvement is, I think, 
equally unfortunate, and unfair.

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 02:13:36 +0800

> - what should those "corporate representative" do?

The point is you dont, not in IETF. Either you are interested in the work you
doing or you are not. If you are not interested in the work, then joining IETF
for the sake of 'corporate representation' is not going to help the WG in
anyway at all so why bother?

-James Seng

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 09:18:00 -0800

>At 09:49 AM 12/15/00 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>where
>experience and perspective.

and

At 09:40 AM 12/15/00 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
>employees to this activity are worthy of note.

These two statements cover the issue thoroughly, for me.

I believe our community is mature enough and independent enough to be 
capable of appreciating the contributions and noting the perspectives, 
without being unduly influenced during decision-making.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Andrew Rutherford <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:02:55 +1030

>them with randomly-assigned numbers).

So what about replacing company names on badges with email addresses?

That might allow one to infer company affiliation if the wearer lists 
an address with a company component. Given most of us know each other 
via email address, and may wish to follow up a "hallway conversation" 
with email, it's possibly more functional.

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:31:58 +0700

> The point is you dont, not in IETF.

I have no problem with that, i.e. that the IETF is for 
individuals. But, that does not answer the issue of 
what should they do.

regards,

-- 
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
--- Aku ini si gembala sapi... oie... http://sapi.vlsm.org

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:49:46 -0800

At 14:02 18/12/2000 +1030, Andrew Rutherford wrote:
>That might allow one to infer company affiliation if the wearer lists an 
>address with a company component. Given most of us know each other via 
>email address, and may wish to follow up a "hallway conversation" with 
>email, it's possibly more functional.

Personally, I like having organizations on nametags.
It is quite often the way in which I find out that old friends have changed 
jobs.

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

---

From: "Michael W. Condry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:32:06 -0800

The point of individuality is a good one. But this should
be the choice of the person. They can write whatever they
choose for the company. For many of us it is informative.

>email, it's possibly more functional.

Michael W. Condry
Director, Internet Strategy
2111 N.E. 25th Ave.
JF3-206
Hillsboro, OR 97124-5961

Phone: (503) 264-9019
FAX: (503) 264-3483
Email: [email-masked]