Subject: Internet Society staff and IETF

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 22:31:52 +0000

Dear colleagues,

The next IETF meeting is the first one that is happening under the
aegis of the new IETF LLC.  Because it is a new phase in the
relationship between the IETF and the wider Internet Society [1], it
seemed a good time for ISOC staff to have a look at the way we act
when participating in IETF meetings.

The relationship has always been a little funny, because of the way
things were structured.  Formally, no ISOC staff except the President
(that's me, for now) necessarily has a relationship to the IETF.
Historically the President served on the IETF Trust and IAOC; the IAOC
ended when IETF LLC took over, and the Trust relationship will wind up
when the new Trustees are seated.  Today I remain responsible for the
selection of the nomcom chair.  The Board of Trustees of the Internet
Society function as the last step in the IETF appeals chain, but that
does not implicate staff.  As a practical matter, of course, there is
a liaison between the IAB and ISOC that has always been an ISOC staff
member, and the Internet Society staff members collaborate more or
less formally in lots of ways at the IETF.  More importantly, everyone
employed by the Internet Society remains committed to the continued
health of the IETF: we all know that the best way to ensure the
Internet is for everyone is to depend upon open, widely-available
standards based on rough consensus and running code.

The fact that a large part of the funding of the IETF comes from ISOC,
however, and that the IETF's legal existence is (still) inside ISOC,
has sometimes led to discomfort about the ways staff operate within
the IETF.  So last week, we adopted a new internal policy about staff
participation in the IETF.  I won't post the whole thing here, mostly
because it's an HR policy and I don't think it's a good idea to burden
the IETF with such details, but it still seems worth highlighting a
few things that you might notice from ISOC staff in the near future
(because these are changes that will be visible).

First, ISOC employees are encouraged to be conservative in what they
send, especially at mic lines.  Employees will be required to note
their employment and to disclaim that they are representing the
Internet Society unless they are actually stating a published ISOC
position (or announcing a new one).  This applies to everyone,
including me.

Second, ISOC staff are required to get explicit management approval to
be listed as authors on any I-D or RFC with their ISOC affiliation in
place.  If they want to participate outside of that affiliation,
they're similarly required to make sure that the responsible AD, WG
chairs, and other authors are aware of their employment and still
comfortable proceeding.  Employees are not allowed to publish anything
on the Independent Stream under any circumstances.  (The idea here is
to ensure that anything that comes from ISOC employees is at least
subject to some consensus process.)

Third, staff members (including contractors) are discouraged from
taking formal roles (such as WG chair), committee participation (such
as the EDU team or Ombudsteam), and so on.  In the case of WG chairs,
they are required to have a formal request from the relevant AD that
is renewed each time the responsible AD changes.  In the case where a
staff member is the best candidate, they are required to find and
groom a successor in no more than one year (ideally in less time).  We
should be here to help build and promote the community, and part of
that means standing out of the way in favour of others.  We are also
not allowed to volunteer for the nomcom and must decline if selected.
And, we're not permitted to take nomcom-selected positions under any
circumstances.

The overall idea is to try to draw a bright line between being
employed at the Internet Society, and being part of the formal
machinery of the IETF.  Staff are still encouraged to read and comment
on drafts, to participate actively and constructively in WGs, and so
on.  There will also be continued collaboration beween ISOC and the
IAB.  But it seems especially important, while the machinery of the
IETF LLC gets running properly, that nobody be confused about the
formal role of ISOC in the IETF.  The new staff guidelines are
intended to ensure there isn't confusion.  I think that will help to
make sure the new IETF LLC is strong and effective.

I hope this is useful information.  If you have questions or want to
know more, please feel free to ask, and I'll be happy to answer
insofar as appropriate for a staff issue.  You can always reach me at
[email-masked], or catch me in the hallway in Prague.

Best regards,

Andrew

[1] I think of the Internet Society as comprising not just the staff
and corporate existence of the Internet Society, but all the
directly-affiliated groups as well -- the chapters, different kinds of
members, SIGs, and so on.  Since the IETF LLC is affiliated with ISOC
and, while legally distinct, remains part of the Internet Society's
corporate structure, I think of the IETF as "part of" the Internet
Society too, but in a loose way that is similar to other parts of our
community.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO, Internet Society
[email-masked]
+1 517 885 3587

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:05:42 +0100

Hi Andrew,

I'm not sure to understand if this means that ISOC staff is not able to "speak" (mailing list, mic, etc.), when they speak on their own capacity.

This will be, in my opinion a discrimination, especially considering that in the IETF we always act as individuals, and I know that there is a big group of very good and knowledgeable people.

I also have the same opinion for discriminating them for participating in drafts (by requiring them to talk about that with chairs, Ads, etc.), or the Independent Stream.

I think I agree with the rest, but again, if any staff, as an individual, has any restriction to participate in the IETF, this is not clearly in favor of the openness and transparency that we look for at IETF.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <[email-masked]> en nombre de Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Fecha: domingo, 10 de marzo de 2019, 23:33
Para: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Internet Society staff and IETF

    Dear colleagues,

    

    

    
    Best regards,
    
    Andrew

**********************************************
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.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:55:12 -0400

Thank you for developing this and sharing it with the community, Andrew.

Alissa

> On Mar 10, 2019, at 6:31 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:48:41 -0400

Hi Jordi,

Please note that I am responding from my indiviual address, and that I
am not promulgating an offical Internet Society position.  For full
disclosure, however, I want to note that I am employed as the ISOC
CEO, and that this informs what I say below.

> I'm not sure to understand if this means that ISOC staff is not able to "speak" (mailing list, mic, etc.), when they speak on their own capacity.

My interpretation of the policy is that staff may speak if and only if
one of the following is true:

	• they have an opinion, and make it clear that it is not an
          Internet Society policy and that they do not speak for ISOC;
          or,
	
	• they are promulgating Internet Society posistions.

> if any staff, as an individual, has any restriction to participate
> in the IETF, this is not clearly in favor of the openness and
> transparency that we look for at IETF.

This may be where we disagree.  If one accepts employment at the
Internet Society, in my opinion one implicity accepts others'
interpretations of one's actions.  The goal with our new explicit
policy is to draw clear lines everyone in the world could
understand. We Internet Society employees are not "just individuals",
no matter what anyone might say.  So we have a special requirement
with respect to standards.  If we don't want this. we should find
employment elsewhere.

I hope this helps make clear my personal opinion.  Note again that I
do not hereby promulgate any ISOC position.

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:20:35 -0700

> Thank you for developing this and sharing it with the community, Andrew.

+1 - thanks!

Lars

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:31:46 -0400

Andrew,

Another personal opinion...

--On Monday, March 11, 2019 09:48 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> if any staff, as an individual, has any restriction to
>> participate in the IETF, this is not clearly in favor of the
>> openness and transparency that we look for at IETF.
> 
> This may be where we disagree.  If one accepts employment at
> the Internet Society, in my opinion one implicity accepts
> others' interpretations of one's actions.  The goal with our
> new explicit policy is to draw clear lines everyone in the
> world could understand. We Internet Society employees are not
> "just individuals", no matter what anyone might say.  So we
> have a special requirement with respect to standards.  If we
> don't want this. we should find employment elsewhere.

I agree with the above and think that at least most of the
announced policy is reasonable and appropriate and that the only
way to identify and fix anything that turns out to be is to do
what I hope you, ISOC, and the rest of us always do: watch, see
how things evolve, and then adjust as necessary.  However, I
just want to be sure that you, and everyone else, are aware of
one of the implications of the above.  One could rewrite the
paragraph above to read:

If one accepts employment at BigCompany, one implicitly accepts
others' interpretations of one's actions.  The goal with
BigCompany's explicit policy is to draw clear lines everyone in
the world could understand.    Especially because BigCompany
makes large financial contributions to the IETF (and possibly
other standards bodies) and is regularly solicited for
additional contributions and meeting sponsorships, no employee
of BigCompany is "just an individual", no matter what anyone
might say.  So employees of BigCompany have special
responsibilities with respect to standards and participation in
the IETF.  If people don't want those responsibilities, and the
requirements and restrictions that go with them, they should
find employment elsewhere.

Such as statement, unilaterally imposed by BigCompany on its
employees, would probably be reasonable and an accurate
description of potential external inferences, but would
undermine the IETF's claim that people participate only as
individuals, independent of their other affiliations.  As you
know from other conversations we have had in our individual
capacities, I believe that changes in the world in which the
IETF operates as well as a series of IETF decisions and actions
have turned that claim into a convenient and sometimes dangerous
fiction but, as long as we continue to make it, we need to
understand that organizational policies like the above are in
tension with it.

Now I agree that the Internet Society's role is special and
different from that of an arbitrary BigCompany even if, for
example, that company is also supplying and sponsoring (in terms
of salaries and/or expenses) a significant fraction of the
IETF's (or IETF LLC's) leadership and decision makers.  However,
I don't think we should pretend that there is a bright-line
boundary between them or between your comment and my
hypothetical company statement.  

In particular, if that company responded to a solicitation by
saying "The IETF LLC and any related foundations have asked us
for a significant contribution.  We think the IETF is important
and we will supply it but to avoid any doubt that we are trying
to buy undue influence, we will prohibit any of our employees
from serving on the IAB or member of any standing IAB Program,
IESG or as a WG Chair, LLC Board, or as Trustees of the IETF
Trust", the IETF would be in big trouble, especially if one
company's making that move caused other companies to seriously
consider it.  Getting from the Internet Society relationship and
policy to something like that would take a giant step, perhaps
several of them, but such steps are not unheard of.

best,
   john

---

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:47:44 -0400

Making clear the separation is probably reasonable for a variety of
reasons, but very quickly this:

> CEO, and that this informs what I say below.
...

> do not hereby promulgate any ISOC position.

will become tiresome and rote. Is it not sufficient to state that as a
matter of policy all ISOC email communication must originate from isoc.org
email addresses, and so comments from non-isoc.org email addresses are not
to be construed as ISOC position statements unless otherwise stated? This
has a parallel in WG chairs walking to the line for non-chair comments.

Kyle

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:00:10 -0400

Hi,

Again, only personal opinion.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:31:46AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> watch, see
> how things evolve, and then adjust as necessary.

Indeed, I am unsure what other path would be useful.

> IETF's (or IETF LLC's) leadership and decision makers.

I'm glad we agree about this, because the difference between
BigCompany in this and any other case, and the Internet Society, is
that exactly one of these is the legal, corporate home of the IETF
LLC.  The Internet Society, so far as I am aware (and noting the
address I'm posting from) is unique in this aspect, and will remain so
as long as the newly-minted LLC arrangements obtain.

That is the relevant criterion by which we adopted this policy.

> several of them, but such steps are not unheard of.

Sure.  When the facts change, I change my opinion.  What do you do?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:02:53 -0400

Personal opinion as an individual:  +1 on all points.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:03:24 -0400

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:47:44AM -0400, Kyle Rose wrote:
> will become tiresome and rote.

Sure.  In this _particular_ case, however, it seems important to me
(personally) to emphasise which hat I'm waring when.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:21:27 -0700

this makes sense (to me) as a moderate pro active position.  and we'll
see how it goes.

the isoc's relationship and support of the ietf is deeply appreciated.

randy

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:42:25 -0400

> several of them, but such steps are not unheard of.

I will note that ISOC employees *can* author documents and be WG chairs, but
that it needs a clear acknowledgement from the AD responsible.
I think that it's okay that ISOC employees can't serve on the IESG or IAB.

If in the future we create a system where there is funding support for
IESG/IAB members that comes through ISOC (even if via IETF LLC), then we need
to revisit this.  And I note that this is an *ISOC* policy, not an IETF one.

I am glad that ISOC employees won't consider themselves nomcom-eligible.
There haven't been any issues so far, but it seemed weird.
I guess if a nomcom voting member becomes an ISOC employee during their term,
someone will have to think about this, but I think we can let that go.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:14:25 -0700

> On Mar 11, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I would like to second that.

Bob

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 13:48:51 -0700

Hi Andrew,

I would like to disclose that I am currently serving on the ISEB.

>subject to some consensus process.)

RFCs in the IAB and IRTF Streams are not subject to some consensus 
process.  Does the idea [1] also apply to those Streams?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. The comment is not about employees.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 12:50:33 +0000

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 01:48:51PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:

> RFCs in the IAB and IRTF Streams are not subject to some consensus process.
> Does the idea [1] also apply to those Streams?

That isn't exactly true.  The IAB, at least when I served on it, did
strive pretty hard for internal consensus on IAB stream documents.
Moreover, since ISOC employees are not allowed to take any
nomcom-appointed position under the policy, nobody employed by the
Internet Society would be on the IAB.  It is true that IAB documents
sometimes include external experts, and if the Internet Society staff
included people that the IAB really wanted as one of the authors of a
draft then of course we would support the IAB in that desire; but I
generally think that it would be better for the staff to provide
(possibly extensive) commentary on a draft rather than be listed as
one of the authors.

The policy also, please note, is about the IETF, not the IRTF.  Since
the IRTF never produces standards, my view is that participation in
the IETF is more sensitive than participation in the IRTF.  And there
are results of study or so on at the Internet Society that in some
cases could best be worked on through an IRTF RG (gaia comes to mind),
so it would probably be too great a restriction to make a blanket rule
covering all RFC streams.

In any case, since it was apparently not clear, the point of the
policy is to apply to staff action within the IETF.  There is some
confusion about whether Independent Stream documents "come from the
IETF", so it seemed wiser just to make an absolute policy about this
while the relationship between ISOC and the IETF evolves.  The policy
is not intended to be making any comment at all about the Independent
Stream itself.

Best regards,

A

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 09:19:37 -0700

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for the reply.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy