Subject: Re: I'm not the microphone police, but ...

From: John Loughney <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 18:06:37 +0300

Spencer,

However, many people here are not using their 'individual money' to get here in Paris. Our name badges list our employers (in most cases).  I think its a different issue if I come to the mic and say, 'We at the ACME company would like to state, for the record, that we support the foo bar proposal and hope it becomes an official RFC as soon as possible.  It doesn't bug me one-way or another if folks state their name & who pays the bills.

John
> From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
> Date: 2005/08/01 Mon PM 05:44:54 EEST
> To: "IETF General Discussion Mailing List" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: I'm not the microphone police, but ...
> 
> >From RFC 2418 section 1
>    ...
>    Participation is by individual technical contributors, rather than 
> by
>    formal representatives of organizations.
> 
> It seems like we're being especially casual about saying, "I'm Waldo 
> from Walden Pond Networks, and ..." or even "I'm giving you the 
> requirements from the Grand Order of Network Water Buffaloes, and 
> ...".
> 
> I'm still telling people in the Newcomer's Orientation that we attend 
> as individuals. Could we be a little more careful about saying things 
> that make us sound like other standards organizations?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Spencer 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:22:05 +0200

That would be fine, if I changed the Newcomer's Orientation :-)

Spencer

> Spencer,
>
> However, many people here are not using their 'individual money' to 
> get here in Paris. Our name badges list our employers (in most 
> cases).  I think its a different issue if I come to the mic and say, 
> 'We at the ACME company would like to state, for the record, that we 
> support the foo bar proposal and hope it becomes an official RFC as 
> soon as possible.  It doesn't bug me one-way or another if folks 
> state their name & who pays the bills.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 08:51:36 -0700 (PDT)

Well, there is another interesting requirement.  Many people think stating
who you work for is a kind of "Full Disclosure" statement.  I work for foo
- there for any statements about protocol bar should be taken through a
filter of what company foo is doing.

I usually state my current affiliation just so people know when I have
changed jobs (what you aren't at Intel any more - Nope left there 4 years
ago... Now I am working at McAfee) especially since I prefer to use a
personal address that I can track across any company I work for.

Bill

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:00:32 +0200

At 17:22 01/08/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>>However, many people here are not using their 'individual money' to get 
>>here in Paris. Our name badges list our employers (in most cases).  I 
>>think its a different issue if I come to the mic and say, 'We at the ACME 
>>company would like to state, for the record, that we support the foo bar 
>>proposal and hope it becomes an official RFC as soon as possible.  It 
>>doesn't bug me one-way or another if folks state their name & who pays 
>>the bills.

Spencer,
I do not claim that my technical positions are correct, but that they are 
independent and I pretend they prove that IETF is what it claims: by 
individuals. I pay dearly that independence for years (which has many other 
R&D advantages). This permits me, may be clumsily but loyally, to support 
for free the interests of open-source, of small industries, of developing 
countries, of a user-centric architecture. So, what is sad is when I am 
asked by an IETF establishment member "do you realise how much you _cost_ 
to the industry?". Which industry? Not mine in any case. Fostering 
competition is not favoring my competition.

This is why I suggest the real danger for the IETF is the collusion of 
large organisations through external consortia to get a market dominance 
through de facto excluding IETF standardisation and IANA registry control. 
And this is why I suggest the best way to address it is simply to ask for 
the truth, the whole truth.

Participation should be individual, but published details should include 
who foots the costs, the corporation, the relevant consortia and main 
customers for consultants. We need everyone, including commercial 
consortia, individual searchers, non-profits, Government, Academic 
projects, etc., but, please read RFC 3869, on a equal participation 
opportunity basis. This is the only way to obtain open, scalable and 
uniform standards.

I live nearby the Palais des Congrès. But I do not come since I am not 
invited for free by IASA as we are invited by ICANN. The IETF policy must 
be consistent: there is no reason to pay personal money to help interests I 
defend to be treated unequal, due to often disclosed but non published 
affinities. They get there far more than what they pay for, why would I in 
addition subsidise them?

jfc

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:25:44 +0300

My 2 cents:

I firmly believe in the "individual" and "voluntary" aspects of IETF
attendance. I also belong to both categories; sure my employer pays for
the expenses, but nobody forced me to come over. (Come on it's Paris
after all, although I have gone to all of the Minneapolis meetings, too. ;)

I represent many things here -- first and foremost I'm an engineer and
an end user. Naturally, my interests may be affected by what I do in my
"real work". I think that applies to most people here, and I think it
would be naive to think otherwise.

And whether or not people mention their affiliate at the mic is a
much smaller issue IMO to whether they use their company email
account. That is a much more visible and relevant label in IETF work
that mostly happens on mailing lists anyway.

Cheers,
Aki

ext Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> cases).  I think its a different issue if I come to the mic and 
>> say, 'We at the ACME company would like to state, for the record, 
>> that we support the foo bar proposal and hope it becomes an 
>> official RFC as soon as possible.  It doesn't bug me one-way or 
>> another if folks state their name & who pays the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:43:11 +0200

> That would be fine, if I changed the Newcomer's Orientation :-)

That computes.

    Brian

>> soon as possible.  It doesn't bug me one-way or another if folks state 
>> their name & who pays the bills. 
> 
> 
> 
>