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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 12 January 2020 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 8902212081F; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 14:06:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 z3FgexXnTNLe; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 14:06:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x436.google.com (mail-pf1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (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 2BA3812082E; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 14:06:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x436.google.com with SMTP id 2so3896459pfg.12; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 14:06:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BkM0JBNkO7ySPuj7qnClC6Ayp57nfxthGFKscsIRDDU=; b=YNXT4PvaEA6KFR0i5QV297l1k6uVaskdUToAWUdT7unq7aO8ahUssL7SDaR6Uk5fB9 nQiHvNhTOgCA9cO+MXutol6CbIKolW0ptq4+4T9ZCBMgt2bsG7t2oaGwG9aaBj2q9pYN pmBul/eOUnATEWSxvPckcOEqi9VERLNHSgLKjwIYZQBFMOh9h1/FPgg0uXGES9qXRZcK TdVbFfs2mPlXk/NY7NKK+opTwMnWhogUeSdlB/kLXDnG3N+WqnKggkVNlEYRTRKEU2jh QCORt0sNi5Gpk+2dtq9f5dXZ9LGl0xoBy0WB5pIsTB7qOVhhZRczzs9Ftx013KsmDbjG pqCQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BkM0JBNkO7ySPuj7qnClC6Ayp57nfxthGFKscsIRDDU=; b=AzH2PlI2lTUryFvXqdkp+bFFVwaTpSLQO8eR652+/S+GUju2jJndf4kAMJsSlgmz9j tN2EnEJ6xtez1RR10iFLziSVcW63UcYn31YLqMiLHpK1BkvnsxRlJAUmEH6Y6WshEwTM Hm9HulNfz/XDjhfhIxK8cIrbsM9x7C3yMye0tiNlOhhhhk3ESTDmLWYvuxiNwloXhx4U wCeBXjxqlcHZzmlG+owxlEi+s3GefrGug1Ii61kYT3SC6mSf0MdZwxnX0AHr7cqNc+aw fgN+9yCjkQ1OgVA+yDQCRWxREokqPm9A55EoMhNpupasEVNoJROPP2mljLNuCWNLRRVQ 7Edg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV4GXReZcjGJ4uZZuUJHVMlQ1NUDggNyEzPGZq7eTBYiClQfbKx 54usg1UKPm1slKenH0s9WRRzC0c0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwRZR62VuCr4FkRBvRD3EVaTvADaV1og/wUevxh/Ly3w/1phtaDlZp2G2F2x1+CM6rYc864CQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:211f:: with SMTP id h31mr16900867pgh.299.1578866770171; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 14:06:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.220.65] (219-88-101-13.adsl.xtra.co.nz. [219.88.101.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j8sm10998106pfe.182.2020.01.12.14.06.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 12 Jan 2020 14:06:09 -0800 (PST)
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>
Cc: iab@iab.org, IETF Crazy <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
References: <4e888f0a-a1e8-df72-cbbc-9a2e2f0d0d05@iab.org> <5F0ADD7E-84A2-45E0-B084-F5AA5FE62822@iii.ca> <a7ff9d2e-fb01-61ba-1aa4-27f32102ed8f@gmail.com> <2f9704f7-60e2-7894-46df-72a26c2f21fd@huitema.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ace1b96d-e9ff-d86f-8440-f4c4977ba3d7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:06:03 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2f9704f7-60e2-7894-46df-72a26c2f21fd@huitema.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/hW0NVs8QRUD3vDyvPmUmNIvMcjk>
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: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:06:18 -0000

On 13-Jan-20 09:28, Christian Huitema wrote:
> 
> On 1/12/2020 9:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> BCP 39 makes it fairly clear that the IAB does not need a separate COI policy. This text was inserted on legal advice from Jorge Contreras, as the IETF's pro bono counsel at the time, who said it was intended to 'protect IAB members from personal liability for IAB decisions (particularly in view of the last paragraph, stating that they serve as "individuals")':
>>
>>>    Members of the IAB shall serve as individuals, and not as
>>>    representatives of any company, agency, or other organization.
>>>    Members of the IAB shall owe no fiduciary duty of loyalty or care to
>>>    IAB, IETF, IRTF or IESG.
>> The last sentence in particular seems to make a formal COI policy unnecessary and possibly harmful. Wouldn't such a policy nullify that protection that IAB members have had since May 2000?
> 
> Brian, it is not obvious that this paragraph in RFC2850/BCP39 implies that "a formal COI policy is unnecessary and possibly harmful". I understand why you would say that, but it requires some level of reading between the lines.
> 
> You are implicitly suggesting that the current attempt at writing a COI policy for the IAB be scrapped. That may well be very good advice. After all, we might say that what is expected from members of the IAB is exactly the same as what is expected from participants in the IETF in general. But, however well founded that advice may be, we will need some more explanation.

Exactly why I asked about legal advice. The *ethical* aspect is probably not contentious, and is indeed right there in the charter already.

> 
>> Can we see the legal advice that led to the current proposal?
> 
> Similarly, if the text in RFC 2850 comes from past debates in the IAB, can you point us to the minutes of these debates?

I'm on travel, so I can't easily search the archives, but it would have been late 1999 or early 2000. I did quote verbatim Jorge's comment from my own email archive, and I doubt if any of us would have gone against his advice in those days.

   Brian