Subject: WG chairs affiliation

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:54:38 +0200

The issue below was discussed by the IESG in the  last telechat as a
management item. 

Some WGs have more than one co-chair. It is considered a good practice
that co-chairs of the same WG are not affiliated or their particpation
is not sponsored by the same company. However this is not a mandatory
requirement and situations may happen where individuals change
affiliation or sponsorship. It is recommended that such cases are made
known to the community and especially to the other WG participants. For
this purpose ADs will recommend the chairs of the WGs to disclose their
affiliation or participation sponsorship at nomination and in cases of
changes of affiliation or sponsorship - especially when these are not
obvious from their email addresses - by sending a message to the WG mail
list.

Dan

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:27:17 -0400

> obvious from their email addresses - by sending a message to the WG mail

Why aren't WG chair affiliations listed on the charter pages, where
the chairs are listed?

Barry Leiba, DKIM chair

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 05:46:30 -0400

I would offer we are wandering down a rat hole.  For example, lemonade  
had little to do with Cantata, and absolutely nothing to do with BEA.   
That is, I really was on my own dime from a fiscal and corporate point- 
of-view.

In addition, is not the IETF composed of a bunch of individuals, some  
of whom happen to be working for a company?

I will take the moment to ponder: are we simply freaking out that  
Huawei is the new Juniper was the new Cisco was the new DEC was the  
new <pick a company that seems to be buying up all of the AD's and WG  
Chairs>? Would not the ADs and NOMCOM have it in their charter to  
right any wrongs?

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:45:50 -0400

> Why aren't WG chair affiliations listed on the charter pages, where

Because they are not the "company X chair" ?

Or, at least, they are not supposed to be.

As someone who does consulting, and who has time to time paid his own  
way to IETF meetings,
I can tell you that providing and parsing this kind of information  
will not always be as simple as it seems
in the above.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:17:30 -0500

At 04:46 AM 9/4/2009, Eric Burger wrote:
>That is, I really was on my own dime from a fiscal and corporate 
>point- of-view.
>

Eric -- the NOMCOM doesn't nominate WG chairs, so I don't believe 
this line of thinking applies in most cases (i.e., not in the WG 
chairs case - which there are a lot more of than ADs).

James

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:27:39 -0700

personally, I don't see why affiliation is seen so negatively. Whether  
or not we are "representing" a company, it is a context we are in and  
affects our thinking on topics. It is information that can help make  
sure the right bases are covered.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:31:18 -0400

Eric says:
> In addition, is not the IETF composed of a bunch of individuals, some of
> whom happen to be working for a company?

We like to think so, and certainly most of us look toward what's best
for the Internet, rather than working on a company agenda, most of the
time.  That said, our associations with companies that have an
interest in the outcome of IETF work are not insignificant, and should
be disclosed.  Disclosure avoids any appearance of impropriety, even
when there's no impropriety in fact.

Marshall says:
> As someone who does consulting, and who has time to time paid his own way to
> IETF meetings,
> I can tell you that providing and parsing this kind of information will not
> always be as simple as it seems
> in the above.

As someone in a similar situation, now, I can nod my head when you say
that.  That might mean that one person may have multiple
"affiliations"... or none.  We need to have the flexibility to use
judgment here, but I don't think it says that we shouldn't be
declaring and posting those affiliations.

It's much easier to refute accusations of surreptitiously pushing
things in BoofleTech's direction if it's openly declared that you're
working for BoofleTech.  It becomes harder when someone can say,
"Johnson really works for BoofleTech, and he hasn't told anyone!"

Barry

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:34:56 -0500

Hi, James,

> Eric -- the NOMCOM doesn't nominate WG chairs, so I don't believe this 
> line of thinking applies in most cases (i.e., not in the WG chairs case - 
> which there are a lot more of than ADs).
>
> James

When we get to this point, we're usually saying "the AD fixes the problem, 
and the NomCom fixes ADs who don't fix the problem" - not that I'm 
channeling Eric or anything...

Spencer

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:38:02 -0400

- one thing clear to me is that affiliations are pretty dynamic: people 
change jobs, consultants have different customers/sponsors, etc... 
therefore, if we go through some mechanism to disclose affiliation, then 
it has to be made dynamic, not only at the time of the wg chair 
nomination. if not, then there is no use.
- however, disclosing affiliation is not an easy one. One consultant may 
be under contract with some company. That contract  includes 
non-disclosure clauses, including the very existence of the contract and 
the relationship. Therefore, if that person discloses to IETF that 
"sponsorship", then it breaks his own contract...  no fun...

I understand the purpose of this disclosure idea and I agree in 
principle that this would be a good thing. However, I really don't know 
what mechanism could be put in place to make it useful and complete.

Marc.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:45:01 -0600

> what mechanism could be put in place to make it useful and complete.

Further: is it only a monetary relationship that matters? What if I am a
member of the EFF or the FSF, think that all code should be released
under the BSD or the GPL, vote Libertarian or Green, etc. Will not those
affiliations and attitudes color my perceptions and possibly my actions
as a WG chair or AD or plain old IETF participant? I agree that this is
a rat hole...

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:47:47 +0100

> what mechanism could be put in place to make it useful and complete.

I agree. Its too complicated to write rules. Informally expecting
chairs to let their WG know (via email to the WG list) about
relevant affiliation changes seems entirely reasonable. Write
something like that in the WG chairs wiki and we're done IMO.

Stephen.

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:14:22 -0400

+1 I'm a consultant as well. I find the concept totally unworkable.  IMHO
the entire idea should be dropped. 

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>  Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
>  Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 11:38 AM
>  Cc: Working Group Chairs
>  Subject: Re: WG chairs affiliation
>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:31:17 -0400

> "sponsorship", then it breaks his own contract...  no fun...

In this case, actually, I think it would be only proper for such a
person to self-recuse from the Chair position.  It really would be a
conflict of interest to have a secret contract with some company
interested in the affairs of the WG of which one was a Chair, in my
opinion.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:32:22 -0700

> the entire idea should be dropped.

This is an important point: my clients routinely request confidentiality
provisions
that preclude me from mentioning that I work for them.

-Ekr

---

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:25:38 +0200

> as a WG chair or AD or plain old IETF participant? I agree that this is

Even further: what about business relationships among companies? E.g.
chair from company X whose premium vendor/customer company Y pushes for
solution Z? Affiliation disclosure may help increase the impression of
transparency, but to me that would be useless at best, or harmful if
presented as an alternative to the honest judgment principle we've
relied on to date.

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:13:22 -0400

> presented as an alternative to the honest judgment principle we've

I think what might be useful here is if Chairs would be expected to  
reveal any issues that they think might be
construed as potential conflicts of interest, or potentially viewed as  
conflicts of interest.

This can only go so far, and IMO only needs to go so far. I think that  
interested parties are very
quick to pick up on possible conflicts, once they start getting  
expressed.

I do think that secret sponsorships are not a good idea, as long as  
they concern IETF business, and should lead
to recusal.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:35:06 -0400

Folks, let's look at this more calmly:
For 90% of us,[1] this is just not an issue: it's a straightforward
declaration of what company or organization we work for full time.

For the other 10%, some, as I said in my last message, judgment
applies.  There may indeed be relationships you're not free to
discuss.  There may be times when there are too many to list, or none
at all.  There may be all sorts of weird situations.  That's not what
we're getting at here.

We don't need, and we're not looking for, something that perfectly and
absolutely defines what 100% of the working group chairs do with their
business hours.  We're just looking for something that mostly covers
the situation most of the time for most people.

We ask this of the IESG and the IAB, and there's not been any serious
issues with how to answer it there.  It shouldn't be a big problem
here either.

Barry

[1] I made that number up; let's not waste time quibbling with it.
90% of all statistics are wrong, OK?

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:46:21 -0400

>  interested in the affairs of the WG of which one was a Chair, in my

This whole idea of disclosure here is ridiculous on its face. What next,
file financial statements? 

We are all working for someone that has some financial interest in the work
of the IETF in one way or another.  So no Cisco/Juniper personnel could
chair any WG associated with routing? 

This whole discussion is another instantiation of useless process issues
that are making the IETF very very difficult to work with within.

What about the current situation is broken? 

Can we change the subject to ASCII text in ID's please?

---

From: "Durand, Alain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:54:02 -0400

I believe we need to be pragmatic here.

In most circumstances, declaration is a no brainer.
For the corner cases, typically for consultants, we need to differentiate 2
things:
1. a WG chair has potentially many changing affiliations, some of them
confidential, but they do not create any conflict of interest. Simply
listing Œconsultant¹ is ok
2. a WG chair with multiple conflicting affiliation has a new affiliation
that potentially creates a serious conflict of interest. In that case, if
the affiliation is confidential, it should be a duty for the wg chair to
recuse himself from chairing the wg. Anything else will attract suspicion.

    - Alain.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:15:21 -0400

> >  conflict of interest to have a secret contract with some company
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> chair any WG associated with routing? 

It's fun to make up a position nobody ever proposed, and then attack
that.  I too can beat up the straw person.  But I don't think anyone
was saying anything of the sort you are arguing.  

What we've been asked to do is to disclose to our WGs who, if anyone,
is paying our freight there.  I don't think that's unreasonable.

FWIW, my co-chair and I both work for the same guy at the same
company.  When we did as the IESG asked us, it turned out that at
least one active contributor (1) didn't know it (2) appreciated being
told and (3) explictly said he thought there was no problem anyway.

All I was arguing was that, if someone is working for a company with
an interest in a particular area, and isn't even allowed to tell
anyone about it, he or she ought not to act as Chair in that area as
well.  I am a little surprised that such a stricture should even be
controversial.  Secret contracts don't strike me as any part of an
open process.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:37:47 +0200

>>>  conflict of interest to have a secret contract with some company

  OK... or, a chair employed by company X is involved with a secret new
project at that company, and the employment contract forbids disclosure.
 That looks pretty similar to me.

> was saying anything of the sort you are arguing.  

  I think the "straw man" you're attacking is pretty realistic.  Can we
honestly expect that someone experienced enough to be chair will *not*
be involved in any secret project at their place of employment?

> controversial.  Secret contracts don't strike me as any part of an

  I think you would be hard pressed to find many experienced people at
the IETF who haven't signed NDA contracts which include clauses
forbidding disclosure of the contract.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:51:29 -0400

See below,

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Durand,
Alain<[email-masked]> wrote:
> a WG chair has potentially many changing affiliations, some of them
> listing ‘consultant’ is ok
> a WG chair with multiple conflicting affiliation has a new affiliation that
> potentially creates a serious conflict of interest. In that case, if the
> affiliation is confidential, it should be a duty for the wg chair to recuse
> himself from chairing the wg. Anything else will attract suspicion.

I don't see how the IETF can draw an objective line between serious
and non-serious conflict of interest. The IETF basically trusts those
in positions of authority to do the right thing and has a mechanism
where you can appeal to a higher authority if decision(s) are biased.

I don't see what all the fooferaw is about on this.

IETF participants have always given an affiliation when they author
IETF documents. It seems to me is that this is just asking WG chairs
to give that same information to their WG when it is not obvious from
their email address. This seems very straightforward to me. However,
the obvious way to implement this is to add the information to the WG
charter page. Emails to the WG mailing list may be useful notice when
affiliation status changes but as the general mechanism I would think
they would add more noise than the good they would do.

Donald
>...

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:54:57 -0400

This isn't just a problem for consultants (which, by the way is my
current company's business).  When I was employed by a mid-sized
company, my work as a WG chair was funded by a single external source.
Another time I was employed at a smaller equipment vendor and some of my
WG activity was taken as a result of a single customer's request (well,
demand really).  That said, in both cases I did what I thought was in
the best technical interest of the protocols being defined.

In short, just because your affiliation is as an employee of a well
known company and not a consultant doesn't mean that a conflict of
interest isn't possible.

I think the only solution to the "affiliation" problem is to ask (not
require) *everyone* (yes, everyone) active in the IETF to disclose their
primary affiliation.  For most this will be evident in their e-mail
address.  For others, for example those who use g-mail, they should
disclose this - perhaps on the IETF registration form.  Also, IMO
"individual" is a reasonable affiliation for those who pay their own way.

Now Dan's message that started the thread was pointed at a slightly more
specific point.  To quote: "It is considered a good practice
that co-chairs of the same WG are not affiliated or their participation
is not sponsored by the same company".  I think it is reasonable to ask
chairs to (a) identify when this condition occurs, (b) recuse themselves
on matters where this is true, or (c) ask chairs to affirm that they are
not "affiliated or their participation is not sponsored by the same
company".

IMO it is not reasonable to ask an IETF participant, chair or otherwise,
where their organization get's it's funding.  But, if this is the
collective decision, it must be done for all - independent of
organization size.

Lou

On 9/4/2009 1:54 PM, Durand, Alain wrote:
> For the corner cases, typically for consultants, we need to
> differentiate 2 things:
> 
>    1. a WG chair has potentially many changing affiliations, some of
>       them confidential, but they do not create any conflict of
>       interest. Simply listing ‘consultant’ is ok
>    2. a WG chair with multiple conflicting affiliation has a new
>       affiliation that potentially creates a serious conflict of
>       interest. In that case, if the affiliation is confidential, it
>       should be a duty for the wg chair to recuse himself from chairing
>       the wg. Anything else will attract suspicion.
> 
> 
>     - Alain.
> 
> 
>

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:59:07 -0700

> channeling Eric or anything...

RFC 3777 talks about affiliation in several places, but does not define it. 

So it is quite possible that the nomcom will not know the affiliation of I* candidates
they are considering, and nomcom members themselves may not necessarily disclose
their own affiliations.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:15:28 -0400

Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

On 2009-09-04, at 14:54, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
> --On Friday, September 04, 2009 12:31 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> In this case, actually, I think it would be only proper for
>> such a person to self-recuse from the Chair position.  It
>> really would be a conflict of interest to have a secret
>> contract with some company interested in the affairs of the WG
>> of which one was a Chair, in my opinion.
>
> Andrew, let me repeat Andy Malis's request for balance and good
> sense.  Like Eric, Richard, and others, I've got consulting
> contracts with folks who insist that the relationships not be
> disclosed.  I can tell you that a large fraction of them don't
> care at all about the IETF, that others care, but only care
> about general IETF success and efficiency, and that the rest
> care only that particular WGs get finished and produce useful
> results.
>
> If my memory is correct, other than having a registration fee
> comp'ed once, I haven't had any specific support for attendance
> at IETF meetings in the last eight years, nor do any of my
> clients expect "IETF Trip Reports" or other statements of what
> my participation in the IETF is doing for them.
>
> Now I would certainly not chair a WG where I was expected to
> represent a particular corporate interest.  But I also wouldn't
> even participate in a WG in which organizational or contractual
> commitments were likely to prevent me from forming and
> advocating positions contrary to that organization's short-term
> preferences if I concluded that those other alternates were
> better or even equivalent.
>
> Realistically, that may be a higher standard than many people
> can afford, but I just don't see where the line about disclosure
> provisions can be drawn in a crisp way.   I note that even "I
> work for company Y" disclosures may not help us very much in the
> edge cases.  I know that Andy works for Verizon and can make an
> educated guess what he is working on and hence what pressures
> might or might not exist on him from within the company.  But
> I've been in situations in which what I've worked for a company
> on something that would constitute a new line of work for that
> company... and been tied up in a sufficient collection of
> strategic planning, inter-company relationships, specialized
> non-disclosures, etc., to make what I was working on at least as
> secret as any secret contract.
>
> Given that I do have "secret contracts" for some definitions of
> that term and that the IETF ultimately has to either depend on
> my integrity (in which case specific disclosure rules don't help
> much) or adopt a disclosure model that would require me to drop
> out if I accept contracts with non-disclosure provisions about
> their existence, I'm not sure where this discussion takes us.
> General disclosures, where feasible, are probably a good idea
> (and harmless).  I think ADs can and should ask serious
> questions.  Even with my more secrecy-oriented clients, I can
> usually get permission to disclosure details to individuals
> under some circumstances -- I can imagine asking an AD to sign
> an NDA as a condition of my explaining a contractual
> relationship and then getting permission to have that
> discussion.  But it would leave the community in the position of
> having to trust both me and the AD -- there wouldn't be any
> public disclosure.
>
> So:
>
>    Secret entanglements -- bad
>
>    Public disclosure where possible and sensible -- good
>    idea
>
>    Strong expectations that people would avoid being in
>    situations in which non-IETF influences on them could
>    have disproportionate influence on IETF work or
>    decisions -- definitely
>
>    Trying to turn this into specific disclosure rules --
>    almost certainly a bad idea.
>
> It suggests only one thing to me that is different from what we
> are doing today (other than encouraging people, often, to
> exercise good sense and professional behavior).   We discourage
> people from standing up in a meeting or writing to a mailing
> list and saying "I represent FooBarCorp" or "the position of
> FooBarCorp is xyz".  Maybe it is time to turn that around so
> that, when people really are representing an organizational
> position, whether or not it is the position they would take if
> they didn't have that organizational affiliation, they are
> encouraged to say that.  It would actually give WGs much more
> information about what they are dealing with than even more
> affiliation disclosures would provide.  And it has another
> advantage:  There is actually a huge difference between a
> "secret" contract that says, e.g., "you can't disclose that you
> are working for us, but we will support (or allow) your IETF
> participation without any particular expectations about the
> positions you will take" and one that says "we want you to go to
> IETF and advocate for the following company positions and you
> are required to keep the relationship with us secret".   I
> believe the former ought to be ok, while the latter borders on
> the unethical.
>
> In most cases, I don't care who is paying someone's bills.  I am
> concerned if someone is putting words in his or her mouth and
> expecting them to be uttered according to script.
>
>     john
>
>
>

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:21:04 -0700

> is paying our freight there.  I don't think that's unreasonable.

Indeed.  IEEE 802 has been operating with an affiliation policy

for a while now, which seems to have proved workable (or at

least I know of no efforts to repeal it). 

> controversial.  Secret contracts don't strike me as any part of an

It should be acceptable for someone to state "Because of an NDA, 
I am not allowed to disclose my affiliation."  However, it should also 
be acceptable to refuse to appoint someone to the position as a 
result.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:28:39 -0700

> issues with how to answer it there.  It shouldn't be a big problem

Actually, issues relating to affiliation of the I* have arisen on a regular basis
within the nomcom process. 

RFC 3777 talks about affiliation but does not define it.  In the case of consultants,
this has lead to situations in which additional affiliation information was requested
of I* candidates.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:56:33 -0400

First, apologies for my earlier fat finger.

> 	almost certainly a bad idea.

Actually, all I wanted to say was that I agree with 1-3.  I don't
actually see anything wrong with the guidance to disclose "your
employer", given that it resolves ambiguously as the thread has shown.
I will say that I am opposed to hard or formal requirements here, as I
am with most of the rest of the IETF processes.  Fortunately, for my
part, I don't really have a strong opinion in favour of this request
on the part of the IESG, so I'm going to shut up now.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:56:59 -0400

We are all supposed to be acting as individual experts, and doing our best to represent what is good for the industry and the Internet as a whole, without consideration of each company's specific interests. I think that most of the time most of us are relatively good at doing what we believe is in the overall best interest (even if we often disagree on what is in the Internet's or the IETF's best interest). On the other hand, we are all human, and if nothing else we are influenced by the people that we know, who we tend to talk to, and what experiences we have had. To some extent these will be influenced by who we work for (both currently, and in the recent past). 

Occasionally we see cases where someone seems to have failed in this respect and seems to be representing a corporate interest. It might be easier to spot these cases if we know, at least in most cases, what the person's corporate affiliation is. 

In most (not all) cases working groups have two chairs. If the chairs work for different companies, then this provides a balance (most commonly the chairs will privately discuss any controversial issue, and to some extent will balance out each other's views -- if one chair is consistent obstinate taking a corporate or otherwise biased position, the other chair, or any WG participant, can complain to the AD to get resolution). If both chairs work for the same company, then this at least might cause the responsible AD (who hopefully works for a different company) to quietly and privately ask a few participants "have you noticed any corporate bias". In the cases that I am aware of the responses have been "no, this group seems to be quite well run and I haven't noticed anything that I would do differently". It seems relatively unlikely (although of course possible) for both chairs to be consultants who are working for the same company who does not allow them to disclose their affiliation. However, I can't recall ever seeing this case occur in practice. In my opinion it would be quite bad for both ADs in the same area to be from the same company. However, having two chairs from the same company is not necessarily a bad thing, it is just something for the AD to be aware of when evaluating how things seem to be going, and perhaps something for WG participants to be aware of if they think that they might have something to complain about. 

For most of us disclosing affiliation would be straightforward. 

In cases of consultants who cannot disclose their sponsors (which presumably are the minority) the chair might say something along the lines of "I am a consultant, and my contracts preclude my disclosing what company(ies) I am consulting to". 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: 04 September 2009 12:31
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: WG chairs affiliation

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:27:35 -0400

NO .. 

My point is so long as the IESG has sufficient tools to deal with issues and
potential abuses on a case by case basis there is no reason to create some
new disclosure process etc.  The IETF is becoming too process heavy as it
is. 

>  For most of us disclosing affiliation would be straightforward.

Yes its pretty easy right now.  I can read your email address. 

>  
>  In cases of consultants who cannot disclose their sponsors (which
>  presumably are the minority) the chair might say something along the
>  lines of "I am a consultant, and my contracts preclude my disclosing
>  what company(ies) I am consulting to".

WRONG ... it's the majority. 

Full Disclosure. Yes I'm a consultant. 

How many consultants does it take to change a light bulb?

It depends - "How large is your budget?"

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:11:20 -0400

> WRONG ... it's the majority. 

I meant a minority of WG chairs, not a minority of consultants. 

Ross

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:44:04 +0200

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 6:38 PM
> Cc: Working Group Chairs
> - one thing clear to me is that affiliations are pretty 
> dynamic: people change jobs, consultants have different 
> customers/sponsors, etc... 
> therefore, if we go through some mechanism to disclose 
> affiliation, then it has to be made dynamic, not only at the 
> time of the wg chair nomination. if not, then there is no use.

Marc,

The IESG took this aspect in consideration by saying that 'ADs will
recommend the chairs of the WGs to disclose their affiliation or
participation sponsorship at nomination and in cases of changes of
affiliation or sponsorship'.

Dan

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 17:55:22 -0400

But, as usual, Spencer translates perfectly for me!

On Sep 4, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> When we get to this point, we're usually saying "the AD fixes the  
> problem, and the NomCom fixes ADs who don't fix the problem" - not  
> that I'm channeling Eric or anything...
>
> Spencer

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:21:39 -0400

Margaret Wasserman a écrit :
> On Sep 4, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> - however, disclosing affiliation is not an easy one. One consultant 
>> may be under contract with some company. That contract  includes 
>> non-disclosure clauses, including the very existence of the contract 
>> and the relationship. Therefore, if that person discloses to IETF 
>> that "sponsorship", then it breaks his own contract...  no fun...
>
> I don't think that Dan was suggesting that contractors should have to 
> disclose all of their customers, only those companies that are 
> sponsoring/funding their participation in the IETF-- paying for the 
> time they spend working on IETF documents, participating in IETF WGs 
> and/or traveling  to IETF meetings.  If the IETF adopts a policy that 
> chairs need to disclose this information, then consultants who are 
> paid to participate in the IETF will need to (re-)negotiate those 
> contracts (not their other contracts), so that their affiliation can 
> be disclosed.
I don't know your milleage about consulting, but my experience is that 
confidentiality clauses are pretty sticky and non negotiable from 
companies to consultants...  your milleage may vary. But I don't think 
we can assume your point: "consultants will need to renegotiate their 
contracts".

marc.

> Margaret

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:54:40 -0400

So:

	

     john

---

From: Love Hörnquist Åstrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:11:14 -0700

4 sep 2009 kl. 11:51 skrev Donald Eastlake:

> The IETF basically trusts those

I don't see how you can determine from the outside if I'm biased if I  
tell you where I work, since that have no expose with what I work with  
and what I'm influenced from.

Love

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 10:01:24 -0400

Hi Marc,

On Sep 4, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> may be under contract with some company. That contract  includes non- 
> disclosure clauses, including the very existence of the contract and  

Margaret

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:48:53 -0400

I think your statement is 100% correct and independent from affiliation,
i.e., is true whether the affiliation is with a large company, a
university, a small company or as a consultant.

BTW I've had significantly less pressure to push positions in the IETF
while in my current position (none at present) at a very small mostly
consulting company, then when I was with larger companies.  In fact, in
my experience pressure generally increased with the size of the company!

I stand by my previously stated position:
> Now Dan's message that started the thread was pointed at a
> slightly more specific point.  To quote: "It is considered a good
> practice that co-chairs of the same LG are not affiliated or
> their participation is not sponsored by the same company".  I
> think it is reasonable to ask chairs to (a) identify when this
> condition occurs, (b) recuse themselves on matters where this is
> true, or (c) ask chairs to affirm that they are not "affiliated
> or their participation is not sponsored by the same company".
>
> IMO it is not reasonable to ask an IETF participant, chair or
> otherwise, where their organization get's it's funding.  But, if
> this is the collective decision, it must be done for all -
> independent of organization size.

Lou

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:38:42 -0700

> my participation in the IETF is doing for them.

This wouldn't appear to meet the IEEE 802 definition of "affiliation":

"You are deemed “affiliated” with any person or organization (other than IEEE and its officers acting in that capacity) that has requested, paid for, or otherwise sponsored your participation in this meeting, whether that payment was made to you or your employer. "

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:43:07 -0700

> contracts (not their other contracts), so that their affiliation can  

Here is what the IEEE 802 policy says (see http://www.ieee802.org/secmail/pdf00271.pdf):

"Please note that you are not excused from compliance with this policy by reason of any claim of a conflicting obligation (whether contractual or otherwise) that prohibits disclosure of affiliation. If you are under contract not to disclose your affiliation, you must either get a waiver of that requirement or forego voting member privileges."

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:55:09 -0500

> Why aren't WG chair affiliations listed on the charter pages, where

Or how about "most recently fired-by or laid-off-by" so we know who  
the chairs are presumably mad at? Me, I have a list, which I can't  
seem to find at the moment, darn it. Oh well, so much for holding  
grudges ;-).

--
Dean

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 22:01:56 -0500

> interested in the affairs of the WG of which one was a Chair, in my

I may or may not have (or have had, and completed or had terminated)  
secret contracts with about half the companies that send people to the  
IETF. Guess I'll just toddle off and shoot myself, as I can be of no  
further service to the IETF. Or given that the courts find no problem  
with me working for two companies that have conflicts (as long as I'm  
not effectively on opposite sides of the case in question), why should  
the IETF care?

Or otherwise put: Who did you sleep with recently, and how does that  
influence your judgement as a chair? Please score them on a 10-point  
scale, and leave contact information.

--
Dean

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 23:03:22 -0500

On Sep 8, 2009, at 10:01 PM, Dean Willis wrote:

> secret contracts with about half the companies that send people to  
> the IETF. Guess I'll just toddle off and shoot myself, as I can be  
> of no further service to the IETF. Or given that the courts find no  
> problem with me working for two companies that have conflicts (as  
> long as I'm not effectively on opposite sides of the case in  
> question), why should the IETF care?
>

I think I agree with Dean's point, assuming I understand it correctly.

I think we're getting wrapped way around the axle on this conflict of  
interest thing.

Presumably, anyone who is willing to pay me to go to the IETF must  
have some interest in the outcome, or why would they spend the money?  
Does that mean everyone with a sponsor has a conflict of interest? If  
you do know my affiliation(s), what would you do with that knowlege?  
How could you make any decisions based on that? I know if my  
affiliations allow me to offer my best engineering judgement, but how  
would anyone else know?

The only thing we can judge chairs on is their behavior. If a chair  
tries to push an agenda over wg consensus, then he has a conflict of  
interest, regardless who sponsors him. If he doesn't, then what's the  
problem?

The _requiring_ of affiliation disclosure is a step towards corporate  
representation--which I think is precisely what people are trying to  
avoid in the first place.

---
Ben.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:02:54 -0500

Full disclosure... I'm a Huawei employee. I use my own e-mail domain because 
it's the only way I can ensure that my e-mail address remains stable (I've 
had corporate e-mail address changes at four out of five of my last 
employers, and don't even get me started on @home/attbi/comcast/rr.com). 
Having said that...

> The only thing we can judge chairs on is their behavior. If a chair  tries 
> to push an agenda over wg consensus, then he has a conflict of  interest, 
> regardless who sponsors him. If he doesn't, then what's the  problem?
>

I'm agreeing with Ben who's agreeing with Dean here, and maybe going a 
little further. If we get too used to talking about "the Huawei chair" or 
"the Cisco AD", that feels like we're poised on a very slippery slope 
towards other SDOs, where nobody questions participants that work to advance 
corporate positions on technical issues, because, hey, what did you expect?

We're still supposed to be offering our best engineering judgement at IETF.

I understand why we care about affiliations for NomCom, and I understand why 
we care about affiliations for IAB/IESG, but I don't like that, and I'd 
rather limit the spread of "sponsor awareness" unless someone can point to a 
real problem that we are fixing.

I'd prefer that we continue to judge working group chairs by their 
effectiveness (measured by fairness and by progress), and not by their 
corporate sponsors...

Spencer

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:36:12 -0600

On 9/9/09 9:02 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Full disclosure... I'm a Huawei employee. I use my own e-mail domain
> because it's the only way I can ensure that my e-mail address remains
> stable (I've had corporate e-mail address changes at four out of five of
> my last employers, and don't even get me started on
> @home/attbi/comcast/rr.com). Having said that...

Ditto. I work for Cisco but use a personal address for lists.

> little further. If we get too used to talking about "the Huawei chair"
> or "the Cisco AD", that feels like we're poised on a very slippery slope
> towards other SDOs, where nobody questions participants that work to
> advance corporate positions on technical issues, because, hey, what did
> you expect?
> 
> I understand why we care about affiliations for NomCom, and I understand
> why we care about affiliations for IAB/IESG, but I don't like that, and
> I'd rather limit the spread of "sponsor awareness" unless someone can
> point to a real problem that we are fixing.
> 

Hear, hear!

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: "Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:45:06 +0300

Hi,

I work for Nokia Siemens Networks, and I use their e-mail address just for
the record.

However, I don't think that disclosing your affiliation is really about
changing to be more "company based". It is only about transparency, which I
think is good.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:34:15 -0400

My IETF work is sponsored to varying degrees by Iformata
Communications and AmericaFree.TV. You may see emails from  
multicasttech.com, but that company no longer
exists, except as a domain name and email address.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:56:01 -0400

Hi, 

Full disclosure. I'm an employee of Futurewei, a subsidiary of Huawei.
I am about to become an employee of HuaweiSymantec, a joint venture of
Huawei and Symantec.

I use multiple email services because IETF work is my chosen career,
not just the latest assignment from my latest employer. And I want
people in the IETF to be able to reach me regardless of who my current
employer is, or who my current ISP is.

I represent myself when responding to technical proposals in the IETF.
Am I influenced by the directions that my employers think are
important directions?
Absolutely. I'm a human being.
I work at shaping my professional career. 
As with most professionals, I work for companies that share a
technical vision I can believe in.
As with most professionals, my vision and that of my employer are not
100% in sync.
But I actively work at managing the discrepancies, including
protecting my professional reputation which is so important for having
my professional opinions heard and respected, whether by the IETF, my
current employer, or prospective employers.

If we change IETF to think in terms of "the Huawei chair" and "the
Cisco chair", that could lead corporations to infer that the chair
position is theirs to manipulate as they see fit.

I am WG chair as "David Harrington", not "<current employer>
employee#12345".
I offer my best engineering judgement at IETF, not the corporate line.
My responsible AD and my co-chair know my affiliation.
If I think I cannot be reasonably unbiased, I recuse myself from
specific discussions.
If they think I cannot be reasonably unbiased, I will recuse myself
from specific discussions.
If they think there is a problem, they can talk to me about it and/or
remove me as chair.

> effectiveness (measured by fairness and by progress), and not 

I fully agree.

If somebody wants to ask, I will be happy to discuss who I work for. I
put it on my badge at IETF meetings. I do not think revealing my
sponsor should be a requirement. And I am fully cognizant that the
original email was not suggesting it be a requirement, merely a
suggestion. I support this as a voluntary act, not as a requirement.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:42:07 -0700

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 

Ditto. I moved to Cisco a few months ago, and I then changed to using
my own stable address for the IETF. Previously I had used the address of
the previous company I was at (UNINETT, which I have been for my entire
IETF "carreer"). But I realise I would rather have a stable address that
can be guaranteed to be reachable for as long as I'm around. I expect to
continue my IETF participation independent of my future affiliations.

I have myself chosen to get involved in the IETF work, and I represent
myself and have my own opinions. It is important to me that I can work
for what I personally believe is right, independent of whom I work for.

Acting as a wg chair, I try to represent the group, and help get
actual work done. I believe that not only should I then ignore my
employers interests, but also my own technical preferences. My own
technical preferences should only matter when I'm acting as a wg member.

One of the things I really value with the IETF, is that people can be
individuals, working for the technical solutions they themselves
believe in. I believe something important gets lost if the corporate
interests become too dominant. I know there are corporate influences,
but I wish that is kept at a minimum, and at least that people pushing
corporate interests do it only as individual wg members and that they
hopefully themselves believe they are the right technical solutions.

Stig

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:12:02 -0700

> I'm a human being.

Good to know.  When we get around to setting "human", "robot", "animal" and "vegetable" quotas for WG chairs, we'll know what bucket to put you in. 

Bernard "the singularity could be nearer than you think" Aboba

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:46:40 -0400

The Vegetable quotas for WG chairs has already been exceeded.

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:12 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: WG chairs affiliation

> I'm a human being.

Good to know.  When we get around to setting "human", "robot", "animal" and
"vegetable" quotas for WG chairs, we'll know what bucket to put you in.

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:04:19 -0400

I agree that we don't want chairs to be "the <insert company name> chair". In the IETF we are all supposed to be representing what we feel is best for the industry and the Internet, without consideration of corporate interest. People who have a substantial inclination to push their own personal interests or to push corporate interests MUST NOT be in positions of power (where "positions of power" include WG chairs, the IESG, the IAB, the IAOC, and probably other groups). One of the major advantages that the IETF has over some other standards groups is that we have ways to remove people from power if they abuse their authority and push a conflict of interest. 

I have seen a few cases where conflict of interest is very obvious. These are the easy cases. Here we don't need disclosure of a person's corporate affiliation to know what to do -- it is obvious. 

However, conflict of interest is often subtle. In some cases it can be quite difficult to figure out why a person is pushing a particular position in a particular way (in fact, in the IETF it is sometimes even difficult to figure out what position a person is pushing ;-). 

I have seen more cases where the conflict of interest is more subtle, and where it is much more difficult to figure out what is going on. What is one person's reasonable position might be perceived by someone else as a conflict of interest. In these cases it may be helpful to know where a person is coming from in order to try to figure out whether there is a conflict of interest going on. A corporate affiliation is only one aspect of "where a person is coming from", but one that in some cases influences people's decisions and statements. 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
Sent: 09 September 2009 11:03
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: WG chairs affiliation

Spencer

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:13:02 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Ross Callon" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 1:04 PM
...
> A corporate affiliation is only one aspect of "where a person is coming from",
> but one that in some cases influences people's decisions and statements. 
...

Other important factors are ethnic, national, linguistic, and political affiliations.
Let's not go there.  Unless / until the IETF goes to a representational model,
we should be wary of well-intended things like this that undermine the
useful fiction of "participation as individual contributors."

Randy

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:15:31 -0500

> The Vegetable quotas for WG chairs has already been exceeded.

Vegetables are the working group participants.

WG chairs are rather more like the fertilizer with which we grow  
vegetables.

--
Dean

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:17:15 -0600

> WG chairs are rather more like the fertilizer with which we grow

And the best fertilizer is horse dung, chicken manure, bat guano, and
the like... ;-)

/psa

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:22:21 -0400

> On 9/9/09 9:02 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
snip
>> effectiveness (measured by fairness and by progress), and not by their

+1

spt

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:12:57 -0400

Bovine effluent ... and I as a consultant I can confirm I'm full of that.

>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>  Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
>  Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>  
>  iEYEARECAAYFAkqoG1sACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxaYgCeN6UW0yLA2DR1H8ep0VIKFnsf
>  KksAoLXXNnwZvoEP7Cd5PD3mHIpxvbrh
>  =Ia0i
>  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:24:04 -0400

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Ben Campbell<[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Presumably, anyone who is willing to pay me to go to the IETF must have some
> interest in the outcome, or why would they spend the money?

Not really. They may want you to be up to the minute on what seems to
be happening without particularly wanting to influence it or at least
not wanting you to influence it. They may be willing to pay for you to
go to the IETF so that you are happier as an employee or whatever.
They may want to increase their mind share and presence by having
people attend without having any specific technical agenda. Etc.

I received no direction concerning technical positions or working
group participation from any on my sponsors except in one case where I
was asked not to participate in a particular working group.

Donald

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:03:58 +0300

After seeing so many altruistic affiliation declarations, 
I would like to make my own, as I am sure that it is not at all unusual. 

I am a full-time employee of RAD Data Communications, 
a communications equipment vendor.
When I attend IETF meetings (or those of other SDOs)
RAD pays my salary and pays for the flights, hotels, and reasonable expenses.

Before attending a meeting I am required to submit a trip request to the CEO,
detailing the expenses involved, what I intend to do at the meeting,
and how it is relevant to the company. 
If the CEO doesn't approve the request, I can't attend 
(unless I want to do so at my own expense.)
The trip request is usually only a few lines 
and does not go into detail of specific drafts or technologies.
There is much more detail as to how I am sure I found the cheapest flights.

I have never received an approval contingent on my backing
a particular approach or opposing the approach of a competitor.
I frequently get pre-trip emails from various colleagues asking me to
support a particular agenda; however just as frequently someone else 
in the company will simultaneously ask me to back the opposing view.
There have even been cases when my employer simultaneously sent 
someone else to a meeting with a view opposing my own.

When at the IETF I select which session to attend based primarily upon
its relevance to my employer, and only afterwards upon my personal
interest in the subject. When I back a particular view I do so
based on my own reasoning; if I become convinced that my company
is doing something incorrectly, then I bring this view back to
the company and do my best to convince others. I don't always succeed.

Upon my return I am obligated to write up a trip report
and post it on our intranet. I frequently get responses from various 
people in the company asking for further details, 
thanking me for my good work, or telling me that I am crazy.

Now, does that statement really help anyone understand my positions?

Y(J)S

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:53:58 -0400

For that matter, I recall being in a YYY work group meeting where  
three employees of company CCC hogged the three microphones because  
they were arguing vehemently with each other about issue ZZZ. I begged  
them to go back to CCC, argue amongst themselves there, and come back  
with a single proposal.

That was resoundingly booed, as if we needed proof the IETF is a bunch  
of individuals.  Then again, it may have been booed because whilst we  
burned a half-hour of 175 people's time, it was entertainment.

[Names redacted to protect the talking vegetables.]

On Sep 9, 2009, at 4:04 PM, Ross Callon wrote:

> I agree that we don't want chairs to be "the <insert company name>  
> chair". In the IETF we are all supposed to be representing what we  
> feel is best for the industry and the Internet, without  
> consideration of corporate interest. People who have a substantial  
> inclination to push their own personal interests or to push  
> corporate interests MUST NOT be in positions of power (where  
> "positions of power" include WG chairs, the IESG, the IAB, the IAOC,  
> and probably other groups). One of the major advantages that the  
> IETF has over some other standards groups is that we have ways to  
> remove people from power if they abuse their authority and push a  
> conflict of interest.
>
> I have seen a few cases where conflict of interest is very obvious.  
> These are the easy cases. Here we don't need disclosure of a  
> person's corporate affiliation to know what to do -- it is obvious.
>
> However, conflict of interest is often subtle. In some cases it can  
> be quite difficult to figure out why a person is pushing a  
> particular position in a particular way (in fact, in the IETF it is  
> sometimes even difficult to figure out what position a person is  
> pushing ;-).
>
> I have seen more cases where the conflict of interest is more  
> subtle, and where it is much more difficult to figure out what is  
> going on. What is one person's reasonable position might be  
> perceived by someone else as a conflict of interest. In these cases  
> it may be helpful to know where a person is coming from in order to  
> try to figure out whether there is a conflict of interest going on.  
> A corporate affiliation is only one aspect of "where a person is  
> coming from", but one that in some cases influences people's  
> decisions and statements.
>
> Ross
>
> because
> advance

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:15:25 -0400

Like many people here I have my own domain for IETF stuff, just  
because after sitting at the same desk for 8 years but working for 5  
companies during that time it got ugly changing my email, my  
tools.ietf.org credentials, etc.

This week I work for Neustar.  I do not have to ask to go to IETF.  I  
do not have to write a trip report.  I do not have to foist a  
corporate position on the IETF. I happen to work on IETF stuff that  
has nothing to do with Neustar.  I happen to work on IETF stuff that  
has a lot to do with Neustar.  I also work on IETF stuff that might  
have something to do with Neustar, but I have not yet decided if it  
will or not.  The really cool part about my current job is I get to  
make that decision.

Neustar's formal position is "What is good for the Internet is good  
for Neustar."  Therefore, would it be telling if people wonder why I  
secretly support pro-Internet positions in the IETF?  Are my  
motivations clear?

Does that make everyone feel better, more informed, and happy?  I did  
not think so, but it should keep the trolls away, for at least 15  
nanoseconds.

---

From: David R Oran <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:46:29 -0400

> Now, does that statement really help anyone understand my positions?
Yes. Thanks.

---

From: David R Oran <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:48:43 -0400

On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Eric Burger wrote:

> companies during that time it got ugly changing my email, my tools.ietf.org 
>  credentials, etc.
>
> This week I work for Neustar.  I do not have to ask to go to IETF.   
> I do not have to write a trip report.  I do not have to foist a  
> Does that make everyone feel better, more informed, and happy?  I  
> did not think so, but it should keep the trolls away, for at least  
> 15 nanoseconds.
Although I already knew this informally, yes, I think it does make  
people better informed. I don't think the purpose of disclosure is to  
engender feeling better, or happier.

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:16:53 -0700 (PDT)

>As per Dan's email sent on Sept. 3 and copied below:

Dan

----- Original Message ----
> From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
> To: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 1:42:07 PM

I work for Futurewei/Huawei and use my IEEE address for IETF lists.

+1

Regards,

Behcet