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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 16 January 2020 01:16 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 D3C2F120882 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:16:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 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] 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 ur1zFLLeQcFt for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:16:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104C712085E for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:16:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.166.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 00G1FnSN015497 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:15:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1579137360; x=1579223760; i=@elandsys.com; bh=InT+MLmXQGnmrZVXBofM+UeR72z0dK5sX2dQKf3F6nA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=4vAdSB5sEMtv05jCuOgh2hIb5+ykcG3GE+bvbI7ZGK7WG0xjWAFaeyheE1/eMafuO i3m2ZqN2VRGRkcVfgaMFKkNZ6zKFtImB4DXpl1WTV4uvpVprqDS67FAUJD1H65ju72 6RNoq1CvPJNtpdpt+UrL2ltnUbqRwLL5AGP6m5dU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200115161607.12cc9b50@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:12:46 -0800
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200115221637.GA32014@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <4e888f0a-a1e8-df72-cbbc-9a2e2f0d0d05@iab.org> <20200115221637.GA32014@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/iPhgIrt66xrnqiOzagzK3a4mq_E>
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, 16 Jan 2020 01:16:23 -0000

Hi Toerless,
At 02:16 PM 15-01-2020, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>I really do not know how to judge this.
>
>I am thining about the following question to (candidate) IAB members:
>
>"Can the work of the IAB that you contribute to impact future
>financial results of your employer / sponsor ?"
>
>If one would answer YES, does that constitute a COI ?
>
>If not, then what would be a good reference example for the most minor COI
>that one should be concerned about ?

The text which you quoted is a standard clause.  It is usually about 
misuse of corporate resources.  It would likely be difficult to 
substantiate that there was a breach related to the second part of 
the text.  The reply to the last question could be "not applicable" [1].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. John submitted a draft about 15 years ago.  The draft could shine 
some light on why it is not applicable.