This is getting silly, where Rob works, who Rob works with, who Rob
talks to, are all irrelevant.
Rob is a co-chair of the working group and serves at the pleasure of the AD,
he can be terminated at any moment, if he engages in anything that the AD
perceives as un-professional, un-ethical or just does not like something
about Rob.
Lets stop discussing possible conspiracy theories and stick to facts.
It would be impossible to fill all IETF WG chair and/or AD slots if
none of them worked for (or had stock in) a company that could
possibly gain something by the work produced in a working they chair/oversee.
In that world no one from Cisco could be a chair of any IETF working
group, just to take one example.
Dean, if you or anyone has problem with anyone's actions as CHAIR of any
IETF working group:
step zero: bring it to the WG attention
step one: ask the co-chair to intervene
step two: if that fails complain to the AD.
step three: if that fails complain to the IESG
step four: if that fails complain to the IAB
Disclaimer: I have been a victim of allegations similar to this one in the
past so I feel Rob's pain and agony of having his name dragged into
the mud for no reason other than trying to make a living and at the
same time give back to the community by serving as a volunteer in a
job that does not get many thanks.
For the record:
Rob and Peter you are doing fine job and I see no problem with your
associations
or actions.
Dean, You have made important contributions in the past, but people
would listen
more closely to you if your volume of mail was less and you
restricted
your commentary to technical points.
Paul, I feel your pain too and applaud your well reasoned polite response.
Olafur
At 15:53 11/06/2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > > Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect
> > > his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers.
> >
> > Should Rob recuse himself from *any* matter that Paul's sent an email
> > about? What about opinions Paul may have discussed with Rob privately?
> > Or just things he's vaguely thought about, without saying anything?
I didn't see the whole message with the above comment in it, so I don't
know who said it or what else they said. However:
Rob should avoid discussing DNSOP issues with ISC. ISC people should
take up their DNSOP issues with the non-conflicted co-chair. If they
don't, Rob should inform them of his conflict of interest, and direct
them to discuss the matter with someone who isn't conflicted. In the
case where both co-chairs are conflicted, that conflict should be
unmistakeably disclosed to the WG and discussed carefully and with the
guidance of the disinterested Area Director or disinterested IESG
members.
> i'm left wondering how TAKREM could affect isc's finances, or the
finances of
> any of rob's coworkers. is it possible for isc to make less money from DNS
> software than what we already don't make?
These aren't the question at issue, unless someone asserts actual fraud.
The ethical question is whether ISC's interests are different from those
of the IETF DNSOP WG. The answer is: "Yes". So a conflict of interest
exists.
There is a difference between appearance of self-dealing and actual
fraud.
There is an appearance of impropriety because Austein is on both sides
of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG. Austein appears
to be self-dealing. That mere __appearance__ is evidence of an ethical
deficit. Whether ISC benefited more, or whether IETF benefited more, or
whether the transaction was actually fair is irrelevant to the question
of __appearance__ and self-dealing. Actual unfairness justifies the
assertion of actual fraud. The mere appearance of self-dealing is
merely unethical.
It is Austein who promoted the appearance by failing to recuse himself
from issues in which he is conflicted. Austein should know better than
to be on both sides of a transaction, and should have avoided that.
> i think it's time to declare "troll alert!" and move on.
I'm sure you do want to ignore the issue. A common clue or hint of a
unethical activity is the unwillingness to discuss ethics. Unethical
people hate ethics. Dislike of ethics isn't a necessary and sufficient
condition for concluding unethical behavior but, in my experience, has
been a common, co-incident feature with unethical behavior.
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
