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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Howdy,

A few responses below, in-line.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:33 AM S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
> At 03:14 PM 08-01-2020, IAB Chair wrote:
> >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
>
> IThe "best interest of the Internet community"
> can be quite subjective.  I'll use the recent
> "open letter" as an example.  I would probably
> decline to sign it.  That does not mean that a
> person who signs it would be acting against the
> best interest of the Internet community.
>
> >conflict with a 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 proposed policy may also conflict with the
> IAB Charter as it states that the members shall
> owe no fiduciary duty of loyalty or care to
> ....  One of the members of the IAB is a director
> of the IETF Administration LLC.  Does that create
> a situation where the person could be in conflict [1]?
>
>
This policy deals with covered individuals' work within the context of
their role on the IAB.  If they  have other roles, they may also need to
abide by the policies of those bodies (e.g. the LLC COI policy, found at:
https://ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/ ).


> >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.
>
> The above is related to the IETF Administration
> LLC instead of the IETF.  It could be interpreted
> as meaning that the IAB can exercise undue
> influence on the decisions of the IETF Administration LLC.
>
>
The first part of the above paragraph relates to appointments which result
in a contract with the IETF LLC.  The IAB's role in approving RSOC
recommendations for the RSE is an example.  The IAB does not negotiate the
contract for the RSE, but since the approval is a required step prior to
that contract negotiation, individuals on the IAB need to be aware of any
conflicts of interest in providing or withholding an approval.

The second part is unrelated to the IETF LLC, and I believe, based on your
comment, it might be better to split the two ideas into two different
paragraphs.



> >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.
>
> What if the individual decides that he/she does
> not need to recuse himself/herself from the decision-making process?
>
>
Then the other members of the IAB are aware of the conflict and can take it
into account.

An example:  The IAB as a whole decides that it would be useful to take up
the topic of geographic redundancy of submarine cable infrastructure.  Some
IAB member might have a member of their immediate family that is a director
of a company focused on providing land-side infrastructure to that
industry; as a result, a statement by the IAB suggesting more or less
redundancy in that infrastructure could have an impact on their household.
By my reading, disclosing that conflict would be required by this  draft
policy.

But if a portion of the analysis were to examine application layer protocol
failover tolerance, so as to understand the cases for which non-submarine
cable infrastructure could be used as redundant capacity,  the IAB member
might choose not to recuse from the discussion of that topic *even if they
recused from the discussion of the final recommendation on the main
issue*.  The data and analysis on failover tolerance is broadly useful,
after all, and it may be an area of concern for them in their own work.
The rest of the IAB would be aware of the issue and could provide guide
rails if needed, but the discretion here is to allow IAB members to
contribute when appropriate, even when some conflict of interest has been
noted.

This is just my opinion, though, and my reading of the draft policy.

regards,

Ted


> If I am not mistaken, the term used in such
> policies is "material interest" [2].  My
> understanding of the draft is that the "material
> interests" are covered under the "Activity on the
> IAB involves discussion and decisions regarding
> ...." paragraph.  Is that correct?
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> 1. It is dependent on the interpretation of the text.
> 2. The interest is not only considered in terms of contracts.
>
>