Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
None of the below makes any difference. We do not know what instructions Vixie has given Austein, and we do not need to know. The considerations for conflict of interest are well established: [...] Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers. Is this just a statement of general principles, or are you suggesting that in the particular discussion at hand, Paul Vixie's having expressed opinions about IPR claims, their effect on the RFC process, and the desirability for RFC's to be implementable in free/open-source software, constitutes a conflict of interest? 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? -- Evan Hunt -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
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'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? i think it's time to declare troll alert! and move on. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
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
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
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
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
I have asked the IESG and the ISOC Attorney to intervene in this matter, informally. What Olafur says below is just complete nonsense. I also make a living, consult to companies that seek patents, and serve a non-profit anti-patent organization. My company also does IT consulting to companies that we provide Internet Service to. (IT usually selects the ISP). These occasionally lead to conflicts of interest, and I avoid being on both sides of transaction by defering to others when I have a conflict of interest and by proper disclosure. Nearly everyone who volunteers or works for several organizations will find themselves in a conflict position at one time or another. Tens of thousands of people do the right thing every day. It is never impossible to act ethically, and ethical standards do not cut down on the number of volunteers to non-profit organizations. There are no conspiracy theories. There is a fact that Rob Austein is on both sides of the transaction, and there is a fact that Austein hasn't recused. Austein's name is where it is only because Austein is on both sides of a transaction, and Austein knew he was on both sides, and Austein didn't do the right thing. It's that simple. --Dean On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: 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,
Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07
I reviewed the draft (sorry I was not in Prague). My comment which does not duplicate the previous comments of Joe Abley, Andrew Sullivan, and Rob Austein: 4.5. Multi-homing of name servers across protocol families is less likely to lead to or encounter truncation, partly because multiprotocol clients are more likely to speak EDNS which can use a larger response size limit, and partly because the resource records (A and ) are in different RRsets and are therefore divisible from each other. I think a small piece of sentence explaining why multiprotocol clients are more likely to speak EDNS will make the whole paragraph more clear to understand, such as by changing the part as ... partly because multiprotocol clients, which is required to handle larger RRsets such as RRs, are more likely to ... In general, I support this document to be proceeded in next phase soon as possible. // Kenji Rikitake ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
