Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

There seems to be an implication in Mike's description that I find 
troublesome.  It may well not be intended by Mike.  I apologize if I am 
over-reacting.

If we were to insist that WG chairs or ADs recuse themselves from taking 
positions on technology that matters to their employer, we would quickly 
find ourselves in a position where we could not get any work done. 
Whether vendors or operators, our leaders care about the technology we 
work on.  They (more accurately, we) work on the stuff daily, and work 
on the stuff at the IETF.  All of the routing ADs would probably have to 
recuse themselves from all of the routing work.  That sounds backwards.

Yes, We do ask that folks disclose their primary affiliation.  I believe 
we ask that for WG chairs, for ADs, and for IAB members.  That gives the 
community the information about the situation.  That is VERY different 
from asking folks not to participate in leadership decisions about work 
that may affect their employer.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/13/2020 2:23 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Given that IAB is in the appeals chain for protocols standards and other 
> items, and has in the past dabbled with personnel decisions, focusing 
> simply on finance and/or personnel seems short sighted.
> 
> I'm wondering whether it may be time to add the COI disclosures of any 
> I* candidate to the list of material that has to be provided to the 
> Nomcom and to make questions about those disclosures fair game for the 
> Nomcom in selecting a slate.
> 
> While I appreciate Brian's pointer to BCP 39, it's become clear to me at 
> least that the aspirational goal of "we participate as individuals" is 
> not universally adhered to by all candidates to the various leadership 
> positions.  I can't read minds to know which are, or aren't going to 
> behave with that goal in mind.  This leads me to believe that a scaled 
> up COI process has become more necessary across the board.
> 
> With respect to the current proposal - it's probably close to good 
> enough, with the exception that "Covered individuals ... or third party 
> gain" probably needs the dual of this - you can't use your position for 
> your own (you, family, company, employer,funder) gain, or to cause a 
> loss to a competitor.   Also - You get the benefit of the doubt if 
> you've publicly disclosed the conflict even if you take actions that 
> might benefit them (working for X on a protocol that's near and dear to 
> Xs bottom line but not taking place on the IESG voting for example).  If 
> you take any actions related to a redacted disclosee you have to show 
> affirmatively (maybe register a statement with the lawyers) that those 
> actions are not anti-competative or you must recuse.
> 
> Just some thoughts  - Mike
> 
> 
> On 1/9/2020 11:57 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>> I would propose the IAB not adopt this policy, or at least scope it 
>> way down.
>>
>> Much of the IAB's work is focused on technical issues, at a high 
>> enough strategic level that the impacts to specific people or 
>> companies are highly attenuated.  In those discussions, the IAB's work 
>> benefits from having diverse opinions, including the opinions of those 
>> who have skin in the game.  Trying to introduce some notion of CoI in 
>> this context would be harmful -- because there's no hard conflict, it 
>> will inevitably be vague, and thus primarily a tool for IAB members to 
>> try to silence one another or a cause for IAB members to self-censor.
>>
>> Where the IAB is directly involved in finance or personnel decisions, 
>> there of course should be guards against self dealing.  That's where 
>> any CoI policy for the IAB should stop.
>>
>> --Richard
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 6:16 PM IAB Chair <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear Colleagues,
>>
>>     The IAB is considering adoption of the conflict of interest policy
>>     below.  If you have comments on this draft policy, please send
>>     them [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>.
>>
>>     best regards,
>>
>>     Ted Hardie
>>     for the IAB
>>
>>
>>           INTERNET ARCHITECTURE BOARD CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
>>
>>     This policy covers the nomcom-selected Internet Architecture Board
>>     (IAB) members and ex-officio members (collectively, “Covered
>>     Individuals”). This policy has no impact on any other participants
>>     in IAB activities, for instance liaisons to and from the IAB or
>>     IAB program members.
>>
>>     In carrying out their IAB role, Covered Individuals must act in
>>     the best interest of the Internet community. Occasionally this
>>     duty may be—or may appear to be—incompatible or in conflict with a
>>     Covered Individual’s personal interests (including interests of
>>     their family members), or the interests of an organization of
>>     which the Covered Individual is an employee, director, owner, or
>>     otherwise has business or financial interest. If a Covered
>>     Individual has a conflict of interest for whatever reason, that
>>     individual must avoid participating in the work of the IAB that
>>     touches on the related matter.
>>
>>     The IAB does not directly deal with matters relating to contracts
>>     or finance. The IAB does, however, have a role in personnel
>>     decisions, and its decisions and outputs have a potential to
>>     indirectly affect contracts within the IETF system. IAB's
>>     technical decisions and outputs have also a potential to impact
>>     both work elsewhere in the IETF and businesses that employ or
>>     develop Internet technology.
>>
>>     Covered Individuals shall not use the IAB’s resources or decisions
>>     as a means for personal or third-party gain.
>>
>>
>>           Disclosure of Actual or Potential Conflicts
>>
>>     The IAB requires that all Covered Individuals disclose their main
>>     employment, sponsorship, consulting customer, or other sources of
>>     income when joining the IAB or whenever there are updates.
>>
>>     In addition, when a topic is discussed at the IAB, the Covered
>>     Individuals are required to promptly disclose if that topic
>>     constitutes a perceived or potential conflict of interest. Once
>>     disclosed, Covered Individuals may recuse from participation in
>>     discussions or decisions at their discretion.
>>
>>     The specific conflicts that may cause a perceived or potential
>>     conflict of interest are matters for individual and IAB judgment,
>>     but generally come in the following forms:
>>
>>      *
>>
>>         A personnel decision relates to the Covered Individual, a
>>         colleague that the Covered Individual's works closely with, or
>>         a family member. For the purposes of this policy, a "person
>>         working closely with" is someone working in the same team or
>>         project, or a direct manager or employee of the Covered
>>         Individual. And "family" means a spouse, domestic partner,
>>         child, sibling, parent, stepchild, stepparent, and mother-,
>>         father-, son-, daughter-, brother-, or sister-in-law, and any
>>         other person living in the same household, except tenants and
>>         household employees.
>>
>>      *
>>
>>         A decision or output from the IAB impacts a contract that the
>>         IETF enters into with a party, and that party relates to the
>>         Covered Individual, a colleague that the Covered Individual's
>>         works closely with, or a family member.
>>
>>      *
>>
>>         Activity on the IAB involves discussion and decisions
>>         regarding technical matters, mainly related to IETF
>>         activities. As an activity adjacent to a standardization
>>         process, it is often the case that Covered Individuals will
>>         have some (frequently non-financial) stake in the outcome of
>>         discussions or decisions that relate to technical matters.
>>         This policy does not require that Covered Individuals disclose
>>         such conflicts of interest as they relate to technical
>>         matters. However, Covered Individuals need to exercise their
>>         judgment and, in extraordinary cases be willing to disclose
>>         potential or perceived conflicts of interest even as they
>>         relate to technical matters. For example, if a Covered
>>         Individual's sponsor were in the process of entering a new
>>         market where there is an ongoing IAB discussion, then
>>         disclosure, or even recusal, might be appropriate, even if
>>         difficult.
>>
>>
>>           Disclosure Transparency
>>
>>     A person's recusal to participate in the discussion of a topic is
>>     always noted in the public IAB minutes. In addition, the IAB will
>>     maintain a repository of all general disclosures of employment and
>>     other sponsorship. It is expected that much of this repository is
>>     public, but there can be situations where some disclosures (such
>>     as customers of consultants) are private.
>>
>>
>>
>>       <https://github.com/jariarkko/alternate-iab-coi-policy/blob/master/coi-policy..md#status>
>>
>>
>