--On Thursday, 20 October, 2005 17:17 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
--On torsdag, oktober 20, 2005 17:09:21 +0200 Brian E
Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
We do, however, pay quite close attention to ensuring that
meetings that *haven't* been sanctioned by an AD don't use
the IETF's name inappropriately. But statements such as "we
are meeting in the same hotel as the IETF" are factual, and
we can't complain at factual statements.
Right. But "meeting at the IETF" or "meeting at the IETF
meeting" are, intentionally or not, deceptive in ways that
"meeting in the same hotel as the IETF" or "meeting near the
IETF" or "meeting at the same time as the IETF" are not. I
read the material Harald posted, as well as the material that
touched off a similar controversy around our Paris meetings, as
much closer to the first two statements than to the others. And
I am suggesting only that organizations or groups whose lists we
choose to recognize, whom we give access to IETF mailing lists
for distribution of announcements, etc., should, in turn, be
required to take on an affirmative obligation to be
extra-careful to avoid confusion with IETF-approved activities.
This really has nothing to do with whether statements are
factual or not, only with whether the statements are presented
in a form that is likely to create confusion with IETF
activities while using IETF facilities or resources.
In the case of this particular person, he was using "we" quite
a lot, and without mentioning any organization but the IETF.
I think anyone who wasn't an "IETF insider" would assume that
the writer spoke on behalf of the IETF -
And, again, I believe that a group that uses _any_ IETF
facilities or that expects any IETF recognition, needs to take
on an affirmative obligation to avoid that sort of confusion
whether it is deliberate or not... and that we have some
obligation to make that expectation, and models of ways to avoid
the confusion, clear.
Ietf mailing list