Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Thu, 09 January 2020 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382C4120807; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:59:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_SIZE_LARGE=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MWqZqeuO5UcU; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 699FF120241; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com with SMTP id g23so101441vsr.7; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 14:59:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=F/3ay+sYg9MxcVh2s8h2Y7whzO+xaAJxl4xQwrQydMI=; b=ce/H9IqkdvDowfhvtgPRN8a9l+PjICUTaynAHCJ2Cg5caky7ui2Hpifk2zQY3akGbO 7JazuD1J53Wkww4EVCZMAlW/f4KsWHCUFgChnjxCb2JSWEzxhMHCuHBRiSHnukIZCGIP xytc+d2azYRnhGq1wQLciEtpluPUucOo79svtM33bEfE7uYQU7LDcv7HRXtbLHSYRHx0 ezAsjdR8MheCSbWaKPKUPT9F8acyZOZjI6op+WbsoTG7m438QRX4asBCcbGRSd2/pLoV 4nqxQuWC5NnSFONFfvmwsE8Nc8WPAfB1WILkXyOKEAVveiAEYSO2P421/TlvceofiLeS rx3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F/3ay+sYg9MxcVh2s8h2Y7whzO+xaAJxl4xQwrQydMI=; b=IivECdbJuZIy+cz1p1yW2dJA5JTxShDPSily9t5M+5TB7f1WvBWdVFuin2EhYR+uJp sJ6YLWc3MeSuqJndAo7zOhYs88l00xAqVQtAX0RoeuKyWqTKLSMIvLgrybtHRBzoBO5T 5xBQCOgKP0QweeOHITfJTHGRm78gZmN1fhG/J+jZmOWJzWtzB91MqijFldKqzTb3b3ox U7tClMc1WVjvnZUQB7qKGFy1vAaLXXvSFsbFtuFuxtyMVrBJ6ufpapwGV3NqTQjBXG1W XHgU8j/Te7+Us1FGrWG2kGd6FMw1sNuuICyUA23WP/NUFYVOymGFI1mV1OKrNyGMrQ+m sQTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVd0kA6NpgtibYo7dmnVkZPlyGTwKfdQ9gj6XkGEDbjVnyqLTjV XAUQRAewW9pYafQ2X5shqnJt34qwSodDMPSU7CBRTA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw2wjOtcBzHIifJpZ8/JKEmZeeHKMML6R7INONcr2uIqEUS5YOjH+MHjPSjwSDI1AikZwbXrg+h6XnPEvh9hTU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:20c:: with SMTP id z12mr69978vsp.32.1578610759083; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 14:59:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4e888f0a-a1e8-df72-cbbc-9a2e2f0d0d05@iab.org> <CAL02cgTOAEH43zs-CjCSs64gTre65eXrSfNOBXCWDFYyfMkLvg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgTOAEH43zs-CjCSs64gTre65eXrSfNOBXCWDFYyfMkLvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 14:59:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOW+2duibA8AJ8jkVeeJc9Eb917neT1jqc_EEc8EmaQ1idpbXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>, IAB IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000088abbd059bbcf588"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/C84ktEGRHdKGquPy9FVh1STXGI4>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 22:59:24 -0000

Agree with Richard here.  Much of the IAB work is technical in nature.  The
IAB should therefore not need a conflict-of-interest policy as heavy weight
as that required to assume a senior role within government, a legislature
or a governmental advisory committee.

Having served on a governmental advisory committee covered by FACA, it
would appear to me that the proposed IAB COI policy is potentially more
stringent.  As an example, under FACA I was not required to provide a
complete financial disclosure.  The guidance was that a disclosure need
only be made in the event of a potential conflict, should one arise.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 8:58 AM Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

> I would propose the IAB not adopt this policy, or at least scope it way
> down.
>
> Much of the IAB's work is focused on technical issues, at a high enough
> strategic level that the impacts to specific people or companies are highly
> attenuated.  In those discussions, the IAB's work benefits from having
> diverse opinions, including the opinions of those who have skin in the
> game.  Trying to introduce some notion of CoI in this context would be
> harmful -- because there's no hard conflict, it will inevitably be vague,
> and thus primarily a tool for IAB members to try to silence one another or
> a cause for IAB members to self-censor.
>
> Where the IAB is directly involved in finance or personnel decisions,
> there of course should be guards against self dealing.  That's where any
> CoI policy for the IAB should stop.
>
> --Richard
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 6:16 PM IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> The IAB is considering adoption of the conflict of interest policy
>> below.  If you have comments on this draft policy, please send them to
>> iab@iab.org.
>>
>> best regards,
>> Ted Hardie
>> for the IAB
>>
>>
>> INTERNET ARCHITECTURE BOARD CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
>>
>> This policy covers the nomcom-selected Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
>> members and ex-officio members (collectively, “Covered Individuals”). This
>> policy has no impact on any other participants in IAB activities, for
>> instance liaisons to and from the IAB or IAB program members.
>>
>> In carrying out their IAB role, Covered Individuals must act in the best
>> interest of the Internet community. Occasionally this duty may be—or may
>> appear to be—incompatible or in conflict with a Covered Individual’s
>> personal interests (including interests of their family members), or the
>> interests of an organization of which the Covered Individual is an
>> employee, director, owner, or otherwise has business or financial interest.
>> If a Covered Individual has a conflict of interest for whatever reason,
>> that individual must avoid participating in the work of the IAB that
>> touches on the related matter.
>>
>> The IAB does not directly deal with matters relating to contracts or
>> finance. The IAB does, however, have a role in personnel decisions, and its
>> decisions and outputs have a potential to indirectly affect contracts
>> within the IETF system. IAB's technical decisions and outputs have also a
>> potential to impact both work elsewhere in the IETF and businesses that
>> employ or develop Internet technology.
>>
>> Covered Individuals shall not use the IAB’s resources or decisions as a
>> means for personal or third-party gain.
>> Disclosure of Actual or Potential Conflicts
>>
>> The IAB requires that all Covered Individuals disclose their main
>> employment, sponsorship, consulting customer, or other sources of income
>> when joining the IAB or whenever there are updates.
>>
>> In addition, when a topic is discussed at the IAB, the Covered
>> Individuals are required to promptly disclose if that topic constitutes a
>> perceived or potential conflict of interest. Once disclosed, Covered
>> Individuals may recuse from participation in discussions or decisions at
>> their discretion.
>>
>> The specific conflicts that may cause a perceived or potential conflict
>> of interest are matters for individual and IAB judgment, but generally come
>> in the following forms:
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    A personnel decision relates to the Covered Individual, a colleague
>>    that the Covered Individual's works closely with, or a family member. For
>>    the purposes of this policy, a "person working closely with" is someone
>>    working in the same team or project, or a direct manager or employee of the
>>    Covered Individual. And "family" means a spouse, domestic partner, child,
>>    sibling, parent, stepchild, stepparent, and mother-, father-, son-,
>>    daughter-, brother-, or sister-in-law, and any other person living in the
>>    same household, except tenants and household employees.
>>    -
>>
>>    A decision or output from the IAB impacts a contract that the IETF
>>    enters into with a party, and that party relates to the Covered Individual,
>>    a colleague that the Covered Individual's works closely with, or a family
>>    member.
>>    -
>>
>>    Activity on the IAB involves discussion and decisions regarding
>>    technical matters, mainly related to IETF activities. As an activity
>>    adjacent to a standardization process, it is often the case that Covered
>>    Individuals will have some (frequently non-financial) stake in the outcome
>>    of discussions or decisions that relate to technical matters. This policy
>>    does not require that Covered Individuals disclose such conflicts of
>>    interest as they relate to technical matters. However, Covered Individuals
>>    need to exercise their judgment and, in extraordinary cases be willing to
>>    disclose potential or perceived conflicts of interest even as they relate
>>    to technical matters. For example, if a Covered Individual's sponsor were
>>    in the process of entering a new market where there is an ongoing IAB
>>    discussion, then disclosure, or even recusal, might be appropriate, even if
>>    difficult.
>>
>> Disclosure Transparency
>>
>> A person's recusal to participate in the discussion of a topic is always
>> noted in the public IAB minutes. In addition, the IAB will maintain a
>> repository of all general disclosures of employment and other sponsorship.
>> It is expected that much of this repository is public, but there can be
>> situations where some disclosures (such as customers of consultants) are
>> private.
>>
>>
>> <https://github.com/jariarkko/alternate-iab-coi-policy/blob/master/coi-policy..md#status>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>