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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 1A457120122 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:40:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 3Bw1EG7zt9CO for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:40:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22a.google.com (mail-oi1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22a]) (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 A0431120074 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:40:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id i1so17629855oie.8 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:40:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0Q/N3QUIKb4pNApUUbtuhNey7LQ/mTVsdMIcdxZ+Tuc=; b=MrKs4GexB1VzzvCGrgNLT8tUONf+bJMRjxCmiN7VJUegzm55ejY26RnHJt3+LrBEBS WVoKmsAXyhGf/r+1blCiBWwiI152AzoPjajrAKSE2vcO9/1B+1LZUM+zl1Ukbij0dcuF K/C759fRxOvlDwegwiZMoB/7YLCiB7HWh5Vexw3+AE1oK84jMy1TKHHt1YoDGh4Lr/8/ xzfxfN/sF/Et0mSdHUgPkzhoR7Qud3GFTyxER2REAv4G95tWPtad91MwUQ4lHfQrqTES p/7H6U1xZgpeQmV4kCpScoPVkrU/sTEtECGV3VX5mkmyH9S/4H0hcOnQ1w4XWmF7BiGS JgWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0Q/N3QUIKb4pNApUUbtuhNey7LQ/mTVsdMIcdxZ+Tuc=; b=eFAjr841J3IGmNHcCM1PI4ie21nbcVgige8xE7JEHffzn/bJR2kCmncafQroYXlQ0y n+mzu3U5ymXmi27rNqr3tL7LPhXsk11oQyF2zo37/Yd0oNgMYNclMb4pZoRmsaKfkOag 3oTWf85FY0is6vhuDhIWXakgYxO0xkAPOwYIs6SrIj3c9OZGQXqluKh+D/iEQvgaQMwd p+R842dMfsS3kDkft1WLBR+fmJDXXC1hB8qpNilEOsCjLmJ28QrNQnuHJluTo3ZE2kl2 CGg9ZRVqrJrg0ktS/EB1a2XHHYeC+feWM4SWVz5y4/RiDPO6LN9XujP1lUqvJly/+lZu f9cQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXiUMVv0Wlg2j/2VbAbfgIIQmIpNOCCMi+IPcZjo/s/gJiG8dEY GmpcEG8WiXdZIh+J/HMFsEdDFddCAheF5APzhNA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyEyAzCAVOFDYbtYVNyuiLcXsjee0YOboF5HZYBhOxjPyo+LNyP64VTX+p4gD/n51Jz/a4LAS2yPzheN+JMc2E=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:658:: with SMTP id z24mr2746576oih.91.1580805624914; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:40:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4e888f0a-a1e8-df72-cbbc-9a2e2f0d0d05@iab.org> <CAMMESsxzMQNK2pCaOYyf7gviOz4Xy54_U9qSnv2S_zbc-E49Vg@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200204002004.0d32f5d8@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20200204002004.0d32f5d8@elandnews.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 09:39:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDAogROq0p8a18XKJUXS-RGY0vQ7uV03+o7QQNWjrK_pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bb6713059dbbfdc6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/vkRvGgvYyZysas6LjlT62NpWLMQ>
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 08:40:28 -0000

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 9:29 AM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> Hi Alvaro,
> At 06:54 AM 09-01-2020, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> >(2) Liaison managers (to other organizations) represent the interests
> >of the IETF, should they be subject to a similar COI policy?  Maybe it
> >is not appropriate to include them in this specific policy, but I
> >didn't find anything in rfc4052 related to this point.
>
> I'll comment on (2).  The communication from an IETF Liaison Manager
> is expected to "represent the IETF".  The designated authority is
> within the IETF.  Would it be okay if the IAB were to set a policy or
> would it be up to the IESG to do that?
>
> For the appointments made by the IAB, the IAB has set policy in the past,
e.g.
https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-statement-on-liaison-compensation/
.   Individuals must also follow the policies of the body to which they are
appointed.  Those appointed by the IAB to the ISOC Board of Trustees, for
example, follow the board's conflict of interest policy.

regards,

Ted



> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>