IAB statement on Liaison Compensation

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Wed, 04 March 2015 23:21 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28831A0053 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:21:13 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 e1rcptzRCwZd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:21:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x232.google.com (mail-qg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) (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 9DFF71A004E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:21:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qgfi50 with SMTP id i50so2517458qgf.10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:21:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=O4CaKcC9BVfYFe+d+7HlAaJsd4+xXKoF/UiQ0XeUMik=; b=V2Ip96vQafP+xpyCSKd7CKzExcLshx8GoNyYei++xMu++24cMVKlJWEmR22DUkYQeA 8oBYULBprgLaWA8BQGuRMBGS5Nzg1I+rbd5toLYfKGmHhO7eIejrC1TSv9EMcDIc+bZ/ qHDZBnAKwCoJRPpeb+96YGdHpOQr05pBwnxfuCsPyZnEg5yiH/aKr7CCGICdaXFqrPd/ bAeLs1xqY7eJPtiaVZ1ueJIpmdR4Fwg/sh7bewyzAHP2Sm+ewsjK0PLme5d7XEsoarbK FTlSJpeCa+VXT7TloDLHzTTqE14+irJipVZt58x3mGSP/H/9SpmYzRmI43Eirv48fc23 my5A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.27.129 with SMTP id 1mr8674164qgx.64.1425511269933; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:21:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.108.183 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:21:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3649018E-8A61-4420-AD49-CB49B22FBCAF@iab.org>
References: <3649018E-8A61-4420-AD49-CB49B22FBCAF@iab.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 01:21:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ890StmxNFrmT0bZjGfyGa+kuuc7ZN8DbKnDMmn7fqFKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: IAB statement on Liaison Compensation
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: IAB <iab@iab.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c14640de341305107eb40e
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/60wKnYDEmdMB8oR3A8A24mglTUc>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 23:21:13 -0000

I understood the statement as an additional procedure item to what
is mentioned in RFCs 4052/4053/4691, so does that mean the statement
updates the RFCs or that we may need to update one? IMO the below request
is preferred to be added to RFC4691.

AB

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015, IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','iab-chair@iab.org');>> wrote:

> Please find this statement issued by the IAB today.
>
> On behalf of the IAB,
> Russ Housley
> IAB Chair
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> IAB statement on Liaison Compensation
>
> Under its responsibilities documented in RFC 2850 the IAB will, from time
> to time, appoint people to represent the IETF or IAB to other organizations
> as liaisons. The procedures for how liaison relations are handled are
> currently documented in RFCs 4052, 4053, and 4691. In addition, the IAB
> responsibilities include appointments to various other bodies, such as ISOC
> Board Trustees and ICANN board liaisons, as well as committee members for
> the ICANN TLG and ICANN NomCom.
>
> While the roles differ, the IAB generally believes that the guiding
> principle should be that individuals serve without expectation of direct
> compensation from the bodies to which they are appointed, so as to avoid
> any appearance of conflict of interest. As a result, apart from reasonable
> travel expenses, the IAB generally requests that its appointees decline
> offers of compensation from the bodies to which they are appointed. The IAB
> will consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
>