IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Thu, 09 January 2020 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 2213312013B; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 13:00:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 oA-Mm_CE0SMH; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 13:00:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BAB120288; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 13:00:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FD5299945B; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:00:47 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DhVFViIoN9bd; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:00:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49750299944A; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:00:39 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <87973F7E-A12D-4DEC-A490-475B7C3BFF34@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 16:00:38 -0500
Cc: Jason Livingood <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>, IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, IAB IAB <iab@iab.org>, "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2B5FED59-A77B-405F-9895-FDA920623D7B@sobco.com>
References: <32C49B6D-8F72-4B6C-B23C-E5E22ACAA198@nostrum.com> <CCC412BC-6F01-4165-8DEC-022E3EC7080A@strayalpha.com> <79623A46-F585-4DD1-B4CA-C12967E7EE1B@nostrum.com> <73739D2E-EE15-4D49-8E99-0BAA79838548@cable.comcast.com> <87973F7E-A12D-4DEC-A490-475B7C3BFF34@nostrum.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/OFjJoQ-aIy9TqJBnFNK9aZcpNGQ>
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 21:00:51 -0000


> On Jan 9, 2020, at 3:20 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
<snip> 

> I think the IPR pool example is already covered by the IETF IPR policies. I assume those will continue to apply. (And I suppose a reminder of them in any such CoI policy would not be a bad thing.)


a big question in the BOFs developing what is now RFC 8179 was ‘who is a Participant” and one sub issue in that
topic involved participation by means of role - see RFC 8179 Section 1.m - consensus in the BOF & mailing list
was that WG Chairs & ADs were participants in a working group even if they never posted to the mailing list
or spoke in a meeting because of their role - the result being that they were required to disclose any IPR they
knew about that related to the WG work items

there was no discussion participating by role for IAB members so having something in an IAB CoI policy that 
says, one way or the other, what IPR disclosure obligations arise from the role of an IAB member - it might be as 
simple as saying “IAB members are treated as normal IETF participants when it comes to their IPR disclosure 
obligations under BCP 79.” or saying “IAB members are categorized as participants in all IETF working groups 
when it comes to their IPR disclosure obligations under BCP 79”

but I suggest saying something so as to not leave the question open for review by plaintiffs lawyers in the future.

Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email