Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

[[e-mail]]

> >> there as a potential for the appearance of conflicts of
> >> interest.   Those conflicts need not be of the traditional
> >> legal or financial variety.  They can occur (or be perceived
> >> to occur) when someone's institutional or organizational
> >> relationships outside the IETF might lead people to suspect
> >> that review and decision-making might not be as careful,
> >> unbiased, or primarily reflective of the interest of the IETF
> >> or the broader Internet community as we would like it to
> >> assume it always is.  For situations where troublesome
> >> relationships exist or might be inferred (even by those
> >> suffering from mild paranoid), we need to get much more
> >> careful about disclosure of the relationships involved.
> >
> > Good point, and I agree.
> >
> > These waters are going to be difficult to nagivate, but I
> > don't see any alternative.

> Yes.  However, I see some parallel to the IPR situation.  We
> could presumably treat members of the community like adults (I
> think almost all are) and say "if you have an outside-the-IETF
> relationship to the developers, or developing organization, of a
> spec, you must at least disclose it", it would go a long way
> and, IMO, not be particularly difficult.

I concur.

> Unlike the IPR
> situation, this one is unlikely to require involving lawyers in
> what one could or could not say/ disclose.

I suppose it could pose difficulties for consultants in certain sorts of mixed
roles, but to be honest I don't really have much sympathy for people doing
that.

> The waters get
> difficult only if we feel a need to take the next steps toward
> forced recusal or worse.  Maybe, if we just demanded disclosure
> as an expected professional courtesy and act of honesty toward
> the rest of the community and understood that either an
> undisclosed conflict or a disclosed one that seemed to distort a
> decision could be reasonable grounds for appeals, we could get
> away without a requirement for a lot of hair-splitting rules.

Indeed. Something for the IESG to consider, that's for sure.

				Ned