Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
On 29/03/2013 07:33, Michael StJohns wrote: > At 01:14 AM 3/29/2013, David Kessens wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:03:25PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> The process for selecting and appointing liaisons is the purview of the >>> IAB and not currently subject to external review - and I don't find any >>> problem with that. >> I fully agree with this. > > > But then you go on to say: > > >> All I am asking for is a call for volunteers. > > > If it's within their purview, they get to decide what process they'll follow. > Of course, and I didn't hear anybody suggesting that we need to update some BCP or other for this. But for a whole lot of reasons, including the case of a collective blind spot in the IAB, calling for volunteers is a suggestion that IMHO the IAB would do well to adopt in future. Anyone who reads RFC 4052, 4053 and 4691 will realise that they are not volunteering for a trivial job. Brian
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
At 01:14 AM 3/29/2013, David Kessens wrote: >Mike, > >On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:03:25PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: >> >> The process for selecting and appointing liaisons is the purview of the >> IAB and not currently subject to external review - and I don't find any >> problem with that. > >I fully agree with this. But then you go on to say: >All I am asking for is a call for volunteers. If it's within their purview, they get to decide what process they'll follow. If they need volunteers, I expect them to ask us. If they already have someone to do the job and they're happy with them, I expect them to get on with it. I don't think this needs to be a rule. And I think it's mostly unnecessary. >I am not even asking for publication of the resulting list of volunteers to >allow for public comments. And that would be a second bridge too far. >The IAB, the IESG or whatever body in the IETF that needs to fill a position >cannot possibly know all possible candidates for a position. The IETF is not >a small community any longer where everybody knows each other. It is very >easy to overlook good potential candidates. An open call helps the bodies >that make the decisions to find as many candidates as possible. How can >potential candidates even know that somebody is looking for a candidate if >the potential candidate is not part of the incrowd him/herself ? Liaison's generally have very little authority. They act primarily as a point of presence. And for things like the ITU-T, you really need to get someone who has a firm anchor in the other organization. Back in pre-history (my first term on the IAB), most of the liaison requests come in from other organizations (e.g. will you accept X as a liaison) rather than the IETF seeking to appoint someone to represent us. There are lot of nuances and there will be organizations where we want to ask for volunteers, organizations where the IAB is looking for one specific set of skills and finds it, and organizations where we'll say "yeah, sure, X can be a liaison". >And yes, I speak from experience: I have been an Area Director and I did >open calls for volunteers whenever a position needed to filled. You had open calls for volunteers for working group chairs? > It involves >some extra work but I did find that there were many more capable people that >could fullfill the roles than I would have thought before I initiated such a >call (the pool of candidates often turned out to much heathier than my >initial guess of a "thin" pool). Fair - but these are apples and oranges. What worked well for you in your area, might work well for one organization, be a total political disaster for another and scare off the guy who just wanted to pass on something from a third. Can't we just trust the IAB to do its job? If we can't, then we either need to change the scope of the job, or select a whole new IAB. Mike >David Kessens >---
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
At 10:02 AM 3/28/2013, John C Klensin wrote: > For me, it seems especially odd when >compared to the liaison position to the ICANN Board. Both are >very important to the IETF community. Both involve >organizations with which the IETF has a complicated and >multidimensional relationship. Both involve issues that are >very sensitive. Yet the IAB conducted an open call for >volunteers, followed by an open call for community comments, for >one position and simply announced the appointment for the other. >I think an explanation of the difference would be helpful for >everyone. The ICANN position of IETF Liaison is defined in the ICANN charter and has a specific fixed term, as such it gets handled via a call for volunteers and an appointment by the IAB. AFAIK - there is no "IETF appoints a liaison to the ITU-T board" position defined. I believe the actual "liaison" status is between the IETF/ISOC and the ITU-T and the IETF ITU-T liaison acts more as a point of contact than anything else. I find it telling that RFC6756 doesn't even mention a role for a specified person designated as liaison. I would assume this accounts for the difference. (Formal role vs informal/ad hoc role). Mike
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
Mike, On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:03:25PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: > > The process for selecting and appointing liaisons is the purview of the > IAB and not currently subject to external review - and I don't find any > problem with that. I fully agree with this. All I am asking for is a call for volunteers. I am not even asking for publication of the resulting list of volunteers to allow for public comments. The IAB, the IESG or whatever body in the IETF that needs to fill a position cannot possibly know all possible candidates for a position. The IETF is not a small community any longer where everybody knows each other. It is very easy to overlook good potential candidates. An open call helps the bodies that make the decisions to find as many candidates as possible. How can potential candidates even know that somebody is looking for a candidate if the potential candidate is not part of the incrowd him/herself ? And yes, I speak from experience: I have been an Area Director and I did open calls for volunteers whenever a position needed to filled. It involves some extra work but I did find that there were many more capable people that could fullfill the roles than I would have thought before I initiated such a call (the pool of candidates often turned out to much heathier than my initial guess of a "thin" pool). David Kessens ---
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
On 3/28/2013 6:03 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: Seriously - can we stop second guessing the IESG, IAB and IAOC on everything? That's not what's being done, Mike, and such hyperbole doesn't facilitate meaningful exchange. There have been two exceptions raised -- one about diversity and this second about open solicitation of candidates. Both have been concrete and targeted criticisms, with plenty of thoughtful postings in their respective threads. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
The IETF and various members occasionally break out in back seat driver's syndrome. It's disappointing. We need to remember that we are organized more as a republic than a democracy. We select various folks through the Nomcom process to make decisions on various things. E.g.. the IESG for standards advancement, the IAOC for meeting venue select and the IAB for appointment of liaisons. The process for selecting and appointing liaisons is the purview of the IAB and not currently subject to external review - and I don't find any problem with that. Among other things, liaisons have to be acceptable to both sides of the liaison relationship. Trying to fill that slot like we might an IESG slot (e.g. advertising, running them through the nomcom and then having the IAB appoint them) really makes little sense. Also, since liaison's have no specific term (I think that's the case - I'm not going to go research it right now), if a better fit comes along (e.g. someone volunteers) there is really no bar to the IAB replacing the current liaison by the issuance of a single email. (And this is the point where I ask David if he's got a better candidate). Seriously - can we stop second guessing the IESG, IAB and IAOC on everything? If there is a wide held belief that we need to revise the scope of responsibilities for any of these bodies, let's address THAT problem (I haven't heard there is - but I may have missed something) rather than caviling about decisions that probably have little if any direct impact on the ability of the IETF to create standards. Mike At 02:50 PM 3/28/2013, John C Klensin wrote: >--On Thursday, March 28, 2013 18:28 +0100 Carsten Bormann > wrote: > >> On Mar 27, 2013, at 22:26, David Kessens >> wrote: >> >>> Recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the IETF >>> about diversity. >> >> Is it just me or is the liaison manager for the politically >> tempestuous ITU-T relationship really about the worst possible >> position to exercise this point on? >> >> Choose your battles; this one is not a productive one. > >Carsten, > >I think there may be two, possibly three, separate issues here. > >(1) Suppose the IAB had said, borrowing from your words, "this >position is so politically tempestuous that we've concluded it >would be unwise to appoint anyone unless he or she is now >serving in an SG liaison role or has been actively involved in >the liaison oversight activities in the last year". That would >lead to a small pool, but, speaking from the perspective of >someone who would meet that qualification, I'd think it would be >reasonable (whether I agree or not). If that were among the >IAB's criteria for the appointment, a discussion within and >about that small group would be sufficient and a public call for >candidates would be a waste of the time of both the community >and the IAB except, perhaps, for symbolic purposes. Perhaps >that is more or less what happened, in which case all we have is >an instance of less-than-ideal communication. > >(2) Given that the pool is small under any scenario, should >there have been a public call for candidate applications?I >tend to agree with David about that -- an open call for >candidates can only increase the IAB's and the community's >confidence that everyone plausible and willing has been >considered. On the other hand and referring to the above, if >the IAB defined the pool so that a public call would just be >window-dressing then I, for one, appreciate their not wasting >everyone's time. I also don't have an opinion as to whether >they should have posted the criteria they were going to use and >issued a public call for comment on them. Again, precisely >because this is a sensitive job, that is not an obviously good >idea, especially if the comments were likely to explode onto >public lists or, in the worst case, an effort by the other body >to influence the choice of candidates. > >(3) If they had issued a public call for candidates, should they >have been required to make the names public and ask for >community comment on those names? I'm sure that some would >argue that they should. You would presumably say "politically >tempestuous relationship" and "no". While I would agree with >you, I would generalize it and suggest that the IAB should >never, or almost never, issue such a list of names and public >call for comments about candidates for a liaison position. My >reason would be that one doesn't want to encourage >second-guessing by the other body, even if as mild as "what does >it mean that they sent us Alice instead of Bob", much less >efforts by the other body to influence the choice. So, again >comparing the apparent handling of the ITU-T and ICANN liaison >roles, I think both represent less-than-optimal judgment on the >IAB's part, one to expose too little and the other to expose too >much. But I don't know all of the facts or the IAB's reasoning >and might change my mind if I did. > >
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
That was the British use of the term "unlikely". Stewart Sent from my iPad On 28 Mar 2013, at 14:05, "Dave Crocker" wrote: > > > On 3/28/2013 6:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny, >> because the criteria would surely have included being experienced >> with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including >> knowing and understanding the liaison history. Therefore it >> seems unlikely that there would be any candidate that the IAB >> did not already know about. > > > Stuart, > > It's important that you used the word "unlikely", since it underscores the > legitimacy of the problem being raised: The issue is not that there probably > would not have been a better choice, but the lack of certitude about it. > > Further, the rationale you offer essentially is one of efficiency, but open > processes rarely stand the scrutiny of 'efficiency' concerns. > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
--On Thursday, March 28, 2013 18:28 +0100 Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Mar 27, 2013, at 22:26, David Kessens > wrote: > >> Recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the IETF >> about diversity. > > Is it just me or is the liaison manager for the politically > tempestuous ITU-T relationship really about the worst possible > position to exercise this point on? > > Choose your battles; this one is not a productive one. Carsten, I think there may be two, possibly three, separate issues here. (1) Suppose the IAB had said, borrowing from your words, "this position is so politically tempestuous that we've concluded it would be unwise to appoint anyone unless he or she is now serving in an SG liaison role or has been actively involved in the liaison oversight activities in the last year". That would lead to a small pool, but, speaking from the perspective of someone who would meet that qualification, I'd think it would be reasonable (whether I agree or not). If that were among the IAB's criteria for the appointment, a discussion within and about that small group would be sufficient and a public call for candidates would be a waste of the time of both the community and the IAB except, perhaps, for symbolic purposes. Perhaps that is more or less what happened, in which case all we have is an instance of less-than-ideal communication. (2) Given that the pool is small under any scenario, should there have been a public call for candidate applications?I tend to agree with David about that -- an open call for candidates can only increase the IAB's and the community's confidence that everyone plausible and willing has been considered. On the other hand and referring to the above, if the IAB defined the pool so that a public call would just be window-dressing then I, for one, appreciate their not wasting everyone's time. I also don't have an opinion as to whether they should have posted the criteria they were going to use and issued a public call for comment on them. Again, precisely because this is a sensitive job, that is not an obviously good idea, especially if the comments were likely to explode onto public lists or, in the worst case, an effort by the other body to influence the choice of candidates. (3) If they had issued a public call for candidates, should they have been required to make the names public and ask for community comment on those names? I'm sure that some would argue that they should. You would presumably say "politically tempestuous relationship" and "no". While I would agree with you, I would generalize it and suggest that the IAB should never, or almost never, issue such a list of names and public call for comments about candidates for a liaison position. My reason would be that one doesn't want to encourage second-guessing by the other body, even if as mild as "what does it mean that they sent us Alice instead of Bob", much less efforts by the other body to influence the choice. So, again comparing the apparent handling of the ITU-T and ICANN liaison roles, I think both represent less-than-optimal judgment on the IAB's part, one to expose too little and the other to expose too much. But I don't know all of the facts or the IAB's reasoning and might change my mind if I did. YMMD. john
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
On 3/28/2013 6:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny, because the criteria would surely have included being experienced with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including knowing and understanding the liaison history. Therefore it seems unlikely that there would be any candidate that the IAB did not already know about. Stuart, It's important that you used the word "unlikely", since it underscores the legitimacy of the problem being raised: The issue is not that there probably would not have been a better choice, but the lack of certitude about it. Further, the rationale you offer essentially is one of efficiency, but open processes rarely stand the scrutiny of 'efficiency' concerns. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
On Mar 27, 2013, at 22:26, David Kessens wrote: > Recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the IETF about diversity. Is it just me or is the liaison manager for the politically tempestuous ITU-T relationship really about the worst possible position to exercise this point on? Choose your battles; this one is not a productive one. Grüße, Carsten
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
On 3/28/13 5:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > Therefore it > seems unlikely that there would be any candidate that the IAB > did not already know about. So whilst I agree in general, > this is not a case that should raise any concerns. Wow. Allow me to suggest that even if you think this is true, going through an open, transparent process will provide an answer to questions about insiderism and would be in the best interest of the organization from a process point of view. Melinda
RE: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
Smoke filled rooms Irrespectively Yours, John > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > David Kessens > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:04 AM > To: Stewart Bryant > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager > to the ITU-T > > > Stewart, > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:13:44PM +, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > > In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny, > > because the criteria would surely have included being experienced > with > > both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including knowing > > and understanding the liaison history. Therefore it seems unlikely > > that there would be any candidate that the IAB did not already know > > about. So whilst I agree in general, this is not a case that should > > raise any concerns. > > This is exactly the reaction that makes me worried: if the pool of > candidates is already considered to be thin to begin with, it makes > even more sense to do a call for volunteers to make 100% sure that > nobody gets overlooked. > > It's not a healthy culture to only allow positions to be filled from > the inside crowd. It's time to fix that. > > David Kessens > ---
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
Stewart, On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:13:44PM +, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny, > because the criteria would surely have included being experienced > with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including > knowing and understanding the liaison history. Therefore it > seems unlikely that there would be any candidate that the IAB > did not already know about. So whilst I agree in general, > this is not a case that should raise any concerns. This is exactly the reaction that makes me worried: if the pool of candidates is already considered to be thin to begin with, it makes even more sense to do a call for volunteers to make 100% sure that nobody gets overlooked. It's not a healthy culture to only allow positions to be filled from the inside crowd. It's time to fix that. David Kessens ---
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
--On Thursday, March 28, 2013 13:13 + Stewart Bryant wrote: > David > > In this particular case the candidate pool would have been > tiny, because the criteria would surely have included being > experienced with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison > process, including knowing and understanding the liaison > history. You might have added "and has access to the considerable time and travel resources needed to play in that particular pond", which would make the pool even smaller. > Therefore it seems unlikely that there would be any > candidate that the IAB did not already know about. So whilst I > agree in general, this is not a case that should raise any > concerns. While I agree that the pool is too limited to contribute significantly to diversity other than, perhaps, on gender or age grounds (at least the first is significant), the IAB's "already knowing about" who might be in that pool is different from the IAB assuming it knows who is available. The only way to get to the latter answer is to ask and, apparently, the question wasn't asked. In addition, IMO, there might have been a slight advantage in another sort of diversity. Given the long and difficult history between the IETF and ITU-T over MPLS-related issues, a perfect candidate might have had all of the attributes that Scott does but with little or no prior identification with MPLS work. The candidate pool with that collection of attributes might turn out to be empty or the tradeoffs might still have come out the same way, but we don't know. > Scott BTW is an excellent choice and is well qualified on all > of the above counts. I absolutely agree with this and I'm confident that he will do a fine job. What I, and I assume David, are questioning is simply the process that is used.For me, it seems especially odd when compared to the liaison position to the ICANN Board. Both are very important to the IETF community. Both involve organizations with which the IETF has a complicated and multidimensional relationship. Both involve issues that are very sensitive. Yet the IAB conducted an open call for volunteers, followed by an open call for community comments, for one position and simply announced the appointment for the other. I think an explanation of the difference would be helpful for everyone. best, john
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
David In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny, because the criteria would surely have included being experienced with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including knowing and understanding the liaison history. Therefore it seems unlikely that there would be any candidate that the IAB did not already know about. So whilst I agree in general, this is not a case that should raise any concerns. Scott BTW is an excellent choice and is well qualified on all of the above counts. - Stewart (who did not take part in the selection process) On 27/03/2013 21:26, David Kessens wrote: Russ, Jari, IAB, Recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the IETF about diversity. A lot of people observed that the IETF is not good in fostering a culture that naturally promotes diversity and that is attractive for younger people to join. One way to make the IETF more accessible and approachable is to stop making appointments for open positions by recruiting only behind closed doors. I am very disappointed that the IAB again has chosen to fill a position without a clear and open call for volunteers. We can talk a long time about diversity in this community, but it is time to take concrete actions. David Kessens PS This message doesn't in any way intends to doubt Scott's skills. I am disappointed about the process used. --- On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:13:33PM -0400, IAB Chair wrote: The IAB has just notified the ITU-T that Scott mansfield will be the new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T. Please congratulate Scott when you see him. He has done a good job as liaison manager for MPLS, and I am sure he will do a good job in his new role. Please thank Eliot Lear for his past service in this role. Eliot no has a seat on the IAB, and I am sure he will provide valuable support for Scott. Thanks, Russ = = = = = = = = = = Liaison Statement: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T Submission Date: 27 March 2013 From: The IAB (Russ Housley) To: ITU-T TSAG (tsbt...@itu.int) Cc: IAB , The IAB Executive Director , tsbd...@itu.int , IESG Title: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T The IAB would like to bring to the ITU-T's attention the appointment of Mr. Scott Mansfield as the new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T. The IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T sees to the day to day aspects of the relationship with the ITU-T, provides guidance to the IESG, IAB, and the IETF as a whole on strategic matters involving both organizations. In addition, Mr. Mansfield will work closely with our other liaison managers to assure consistency of approach across technologies, as well as see that liaisons from the ITU-T to the IETF are appropriately allocated and responded to. We expect Mr. Mansfield to play a significant supporting role in strategic discussions between the IETF and ITU leadership. Mr. Scott Mansfield has over twenty of experience in software development and network management. He is a Principal Engineer in Ericsson’s DUIB Technology Network Architecture group. A long time technologist, Scott has built object-oriented workflow systems for the US Treasury Department, The United States Naval Reserve, Federal Express, and the United Parcel Service. Scott has also been the Lead Architect for Ericsson’s North American Mobile Backhaul Solutions, before moving into a position of Standards Engineer. Scott has been Ericsson’s MEF Coordinator for the past 5 years and is also an active contributor to the IETF and the ITU-T, and has been liaison manager from the IETF to ITU-T for MPLS for the past two years. The IAB thanks the outgoing Liaison Manager, Mr. Eliot Lear, for his valuable service. For the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair David Kessens --- . -- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T
Russ, Jari, IAB, Recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the IETF about diversity. A lot of people observed that the IETF is not good in fostering a culture that naturally promotes diversity and that is attractive for younger people to join. One way to make the IETF more accessible and approachable is to stop making appointments for open positions by recruiting only behind closed doors. I am very disappointed that the IAB again has chosen to fill a position without a clear and open call for volunteers. We can talk a long time about diversity in this community, but it is time to take concrete actions. David Kessens PS This message doesn't in any way intends to doubt Scott's skills. I am disappointed about the process used. --- On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:13:33PM -0400, IAB Chair wrote: > The IAB has just notified the ITU-T that Scott mansfield will be the new IETF > Liaison Manager to the ITU-T. > > Please congratulate Scott when you see him. He has done a good job as liaison > manager for MPLS, and I am sure he will do a good job in his new role. > > Please thank Eliot Lear for his past service in this role. Eliot no has a > seat on the IAB, and I am sure he will provide valuable support for Scott. > > Thanks, > Russ > > = = = = = = = = = = > > Liaison Statement: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager > to the ITU-T > Submission Date: 27 March 2013 > From: The IAB (Russ Housley) > To: ITU-T TSAG (tsbt...@itu.int) > Cc: IAB , The IAB Executive Director , > tsbd...@itu.int , IESG > Title: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T > > The IAB would like to bring to the ITU-T's attention the appointment of Mr. > Scott Mansfield as the new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T. > > The IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T sees to the day to day aspects of the > relationship with the ITU-T, provides guidance to the IESG, IAB, and the IETF > as a whole on strategic matters involving both organizations. In addition, > Mr. Mansfield will work closely with our other liaison managers to assure > consistency of approach across technologies, as well as see that liaisons > from the ITU-T to the IETF are appropriately allocated and responded to. We > expect Mr. Mansfield to play a significant supporting role in strategic > discussions between the IETF and ITU leadership. > > Mr. Scott Mansfield has over twenty of experience in software development and > network management. He is a Principal Engineer in Ericsson’s DUIB Technology > Network Architecture group. A long time technologist, Scott has built > object-oriented workflow systems for the US Treasury Department, The United > States Naval Reserve, Federal Express, and the United Parcel Service. Scott > has also been the Lead Architect for Ericsson’s North American Mobile > Backhaul Solutions, before moving into a position of Standards Engineer. > Scott has been Ericsson’s MEF Coordinator for the past 5 years and is also an > active contributor to the IETF and the ITU-T, and has been liaison manager > from the IETF to ITU-T for MPLS for the past two years. > > The IAB thanks the outgoing Liaison Manager, Mr. Eliot Lear, for his valuable > service. > > For the IAB, > Russ Housley > IAB Chair David Kessens ---
