[Iasa20] CoI proposal

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 06 May 2019 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B859C120182 for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2019 13:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 Zw-xuTY8fv94 for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2019 13:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x129.google.com (mail-it1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (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 8FACF120155 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 May 2019 13:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x129.google.com with SMTP id g71so7077311ita.5 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 May 2019 13:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6uAS2qPziDCiIzOKlnGMa7q6/z9SfvSVvatDLzAwZ5g=; b=aLJ4sBLKRjkbUyQDYWYVoRfm5qy+W//xG8inMYc9o/uTBpfW/JGP4bgsE4eT5sau0A KUygwjgi6zAY6WPD2kleOMr3E/TeWQKxA7D6ymQRtOQZ+uMm1f2uE/9cCIFL6bIN6Zoc m5eGZ5E6hqHXdJyBMnoapcCFsyTblt5UIe3rw/nIkrF5Z6OlzN7QB1mTxZsqBPLQ9rx7 jvs2L6VZJsnkS1inBzMtTLo55VIAjlDlY+Ub7FQlyxbxojjEPdD6u+OKupIYkUaTmJjf b02D7cSBeIobZmD2LjNlLQIfl2lheRynZVI+5pSYxWYs82oTlFPlBjxuhTO70hwwjiqc ywrg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6uAS2qPziDCiIzOKlnGMa7q6/z9SfvSVvatDLzAwZ5g=; b=P/xdlbr/uVejRJ9Kcq3S3TXrkdWb1NHJjxI4XMOFi7GCYiU0xRK8EuosKP19qERv+q zVrDXZmYpzQfHfQL4/EFpn+ZpCNcSaG1SvSHBGlO/3CJQMW35ttd6w1UVjqgzMD9UqaW AvJFDA9K2fJuPOvudtxDKzLztVVQvxCD+c94amhu16jPh5uWegdcn8G2sVpwKAGMfz/O SvtYZ7Mr5/607iu4QBuugsBSFLv6rhSVHGuj175r31IikEle3N9GyB0PnToIm8B9e8rf xExAS6m7O3g7F6oYIfT/nNkYEcfnNWPvm3B1sMCWfX+QK92Rwa6oZCz+vfk6DNhbHVwX ZZoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVFCb6Vrx2GBDelCl0zBX8oa/b3UXBulw2VBSuhiqO4POx31Pn5 56pbGP5d61v+ciaP8b2YHDwSjd3d/stMkkYZh3WfZQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw/Y2DnYdHbQHk0obutmoRz75s65f5KhYQtafs4yC3xAgNsVMCDCmKc2sUypidDlwIht3pnENTX1Rs1SZ7xkUY=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:46cc:: with SMTP id j195mr20076767itb.161.1557175069516; Mon, 06 May 2019 13:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 13:37:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCJib6uGRkMhfc+=eW0zzzCb64XJsqrLG9B8hWbmoFhZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: IASA 2 WG <iasa20@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000df2e9305883e12eb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/lxJ4kSiAmWyJGnroNKnUzAcQ-b8>
Subject: [Iasa20] CoI proposal
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions relating to reorganising the IETF administrative structures in the so called “IASA 2.0” project. <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 20:37:53 -0000

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. (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. )

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