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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

> On 9 Jan 2020, at 14:28, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, January 9, 2020 13:14 +0000 Stewart Bryant
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> On 8 Jan 2020, at 23:14, IAB Chair <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
> 
>> Is this to be a public or a private register of interests?
> 
> Stewart's question is important for what may be an additional
> reason.  There is a fairly long history of IAB members who often
> show up as "independent" but who are full-time consultants with
> multiple clients (as distinct from those who serve in
> consulting, rather than employee, roles but with one principal
> client).  They may have, in the words of the draft, no "main
> employment, sponsorship, consulting customer, ...".  In those
> situations, it isn't terribly unusual for consulting agreements
> to contain requirements that the relationship not be disclosed
> by either party without mutual consent.  I've had little trouble
> getting consent when there is a substantive reason that doesn't
> threaten the reasons for the confidentiality provision and there
> are provisions to keep the information from becoming generally
> known, but completely public disclosures would probably not fly.
> 
> I'd assume that someone working for, or a principal of, a
> stealth startup might face similar constraints.
> 
> While I applaud the IAB's coming to grips with this issue, let's
> be sure we don't do anything that limits the diversity or range
> of skills and perspectives of people who can serve on  the IAB
> as an accidental side-effect of a well-intentioned policy.
> 
>   John
> 

John

I think that this is a dilemma we need to explore in more depth.

Is taking money from a secret client consistent with holding high office in an open standards organisation? I for one have always found that difficult to accept as reasonable.

Say it is, we all agree on the potential for abuse.

Say it is not, then as you say the candidate pool is reduced.

A compromise might be to require confidential disclosure to some trusted party that monitors recusal, but the even that is potentially subject to abuse through soft power.

I suspect that the  only way to ensure that we have a fully trustworthy system is to require openness and accept that the candidate pool is reduced.

- Stewart






>