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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 3E4D6120803 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 11:41:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 pKgIKO66bRrc for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 11:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F8012022E for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 11:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.131.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 014JerkK006416 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Feb 2020 11:41:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1580845265; x=1580931665; i=@elandsys.com; bh=k5uBGIfofvnt7jPs0Pted75Onpq1Z6p22uonSXDtSZ0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Z4MYM9JH0WAjFVEXwsD61Fd9UsyASKm/ILIwchsGGNsCVwc5prCVSKdsty1vFo0XL lx5xa19+Rj3yXMAOijalKG554FEH3C9V7vZPR95nH+HJzPrqzFmUiECEC89M6LTCcT V25vXVP0UckrjbNRKht541LsHmPj8mHOiXC6JvEs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200204110733.0beec4a0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:40:41 -0800
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDAogROq0p8a18XKJUXS-RGY0vQ7uV03+o7QQNWjrK_pw@mail.g mail.com>
References: <4e888f0a-a1e8-df72-cbbc-9a2e2f0d0d05@iab.org> <CAMMESsxzMQNK2pCaOYyf7gviOz4Xy54_U9qSnv2S_zbc-E49Vg@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200204002004.0d32f5d8@elandnews.com> <CA+9kkMDAogROq0p8a18XKJUXS-RGY0vQ7uV03+o7QQNWjrK_pw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/Dz35tBWsiqqUBx560cqOmxFkDbI>
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 19:41:10 -0000

Hi Ted,
At 12:39 AM 04-02-2020, Ted Hardie wrote:
>For the appointments made by the IAB, the IAB has set policy in the 
>past, e.g. 
><https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-statement-on-liaison-compensation/>https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-statement-on-liaison-compensation/ 
>.   Individuals must also follow the policies of the body to which 
>they are appointed.  Those appointed by the IAB to the ISOC Board of 
>Trustees, for example, follow the board's conflict of interest policy.

Thanks for pointing to the IAB statement.

The mail archives show that there was an IAB statement without any 
significant discussion whereas RFC 4052 went through IESG 
Evaluation.  RFC 4052 was not set by the body doing the appointment.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy