IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Thu, 09 January 2020 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 2CC621200FE; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 09:55:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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=akamai.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 7waRihT_YnZw; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 09:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 654CA120019; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 09:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122330.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 009Hsmbw024522; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:55:34 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=NHMwRGPyQDxFea6jd/r+XOLwTkE2oO6A1D7lZf2aX0Q=; b=GIjWVaIKM6R03rGJVqfRSSSB3g26fOW3qkEzwTZU/UBLtyhgrsDaurek74J3QgFrlNIC u5LZyR7Ud7z0dGBxnnkRsLfNyoKFC0HL0d9Ol6n7lHoFPtD4PpTpLxvLlXe5F+i4OgDu lg/EJyDq3KHKupxO9nsl6uCk0uvX+Sz78ItTicupSPrIvg1XYIXTSR74dz8rqt5HV+xR 1Xw/4XVc6pBlQh9+Iw7DhHcOsRvp/K2sIhGaseuNKodmmCi5fkx/uSA3QP9iHBhmUbNp utZnTAQPamkbvwBPXa//RuMwIPVqPBKlwA72Aq8TYuDxTOFypVl7ldFAmxM5U8AcEAnM iQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint5 (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [184.51.33.60] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2xdbv7nshg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jan 2020 17:55:34 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 009HlWVm011773; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 09:55:33 -0800
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.32]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2xasjb4h7w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jan 2020 09:55:33 -0800
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) by usma1ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:55:32 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:55:32 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
CC: IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>, "iab@iab.org" <iab@iab.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy
Thread-Index: AQHVxnmMup37bT2dZUClj9/F6vIplqfipFqAgAAUtQCAAAVtgP//4IiA
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 17:55:31 +0000
Message-ID: <815C4AB0-9BFB-4073-BA49-1A8F90B2F0B1@akamai.com>
References: <4e888f0a-a1e8-df72-cbbc-9a2e2f0d0d05@iab.org> <1E62D045-4171-41D6-858A-C277C947AD05@gmail.com> <FA8D82402CD1DCD103D93E43@PSB> <A4284A14-9A24-43BF-BD54-D375FF3E7F34@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A4284A14-9A24-43BF-BD54-D375FF3E7F34@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.21.0.200104
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.118.52]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <91166063EC3B9641A0084EA8A662910A@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2020-01-09_03:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=865 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-2001090146
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.572 definitions=2020-01-09_03:2020-01-09, 2020-01-09 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=838 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-2001090146
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/xd0pGlEgmdCfTqX7snnNU5ZNoSs>
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 17:55:37 -0000

>    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.
 
There may be other ways to achieve the goal, but I agree with transparency trumps all as the default.
    
    
    
    
    >

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email