Re: [Iasa20] CoI proposal

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

Two possible additional points and one where I probably
predictably wouldn't quite agree with your suggestion
below.

First additional point: The board could do well to document
this as part of the role description to be sent to nomcom,
so that everyone gets to be aware of things early, and so
that nomcom can decide if e.g. they wanna ask folks who
volunteer about any of this.

Other stuff below...

On 06/05/2019 21:37, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Howdy,
> 
> I think I understand the points that have been made in that thread, both by
> those with NDAs in their past and those with concerns about transparency.
> In line with that, I believe the appropriate policy runs something like
> this:
> 
> The Board members agree that any employment, contract, or affiliation (for
> themselves of their household) that might touch on the work of the IETF or
> the LLC must be disclosed to the Board as a whole.
> 
> The Board then certifies to the community that each member has provided the
> appropriate disclosure and they are operating in awareness of these
> potential conflict.
> 
> Each member provides a summary that can be published.  That may elide
> details which were provided to the board. 

As an addition, I'd suggest that the board encourage people
to only elide the minimum when that's really needed, IOW, that
the board actively encourage as full a disclosure as possible.

> (In a situation like the one Adam
> mentioned, for example, that contract might have been disclosed as
> "implementation work undertaken under a contract held by FOO LLC", where
> the name of the contracting part and the nature of the work were available
> to the Board, but not the public. )

I don't quite agree with the above (or at least with what I
think you mean).

I do accept that we cannot write an algorithm that defines
all the acceptable details that are allowed to be elided. But,
I'm not comfortable with the idea that a board member might
say "I work with an unnamed entity which may cause a CoI."
Doesn't that just sound pretty bad when put like that? What
use would that be to the community?

Cheers,
S.

> 
> At some cadence (quarterly, at the start of each meeting, or otherwise),
> the chair calls for updates to the CoIs submitted to the board and
> re-certifies to the community that each member has responded.  If a member
> is found to have given incorrect information or to have failed to provide a
> salient update, the board can remove that member under the existing
> procedures.
> 
> I think that is close enough to ISOC's policy that those board members who
> have previously served as ISOC trustees should find it easy to follow.
> 
> Just my personal advice to the board, of course,
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>