Re: Proposed IETF Trust Conflict of Interest Policy for Community Review

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 29 March 2016 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A7712D575; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 l7R5utKc4UkZ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C31BE12DAE8; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5208; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1459293838; x=1460503438; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Mcnfp+Uj0mpjnlex5je/dpytah3PGD5dH682DorLYO8=; b=kdBNWf1Pjtn/IxXGIQf6GjI2RcTeMHd4KOxdU3TO0K4GYfFv37bMIHvT SnQtH16hZX0jdQW8k1nJ/zcAhaN7OC2QdmNOjys4VdumlQz1VNBdFdU6u 66Ot9QC9D2iMBNieDdPErJbB96Dhen10wpJQMGjkfzitgpPi7XkY7wSaT A=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DPAgDaDftW/5FdJa1dgzNTfQavKIlCg?= =?us-ascii?q?g8OgXAjhWoCgT84FAEBAQEBAQFkJ4RBAQEBAwEjVgULAgEIGCoCAiERFBECBA4?= =?us-ascii?q?FDgaHfgMKCA6vPYtrDYRzAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBDQiIEIJRgj+BT?= =?us-ascii?q?hEBgx4rgisFh2WHEYhFMQGDHoFmbYYggXWBZk6Df4hahzuHUwEeAUODZWwBhwo?= =?us-ascii?q?2fgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,413,1454976000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="90752610"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Mar 2016 23:23:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (xch-rcd-014.cisco.com [173.37.102.24]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2TNNv9G019194 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 23:23:57 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com (173.37.102.23) by XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (173.37.102.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:23:56 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) by XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:23:56 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Trust Conflict of Interest Policy for Community Review
Thread-Topic: Proposed IETF Trust Conflict of Interest Policy for Community Review
Thread-Index: AQHRiecwUSKV1x1QD0alwxgGsNglc59xWweAgAAEigCAAALQAIAAAcGA
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 23:23:56 +0000
Message-ID: <6D0D19E9-67DD-49AE-89BC-83DAF455BDDE@cisco.com>
References: <20160329175254.8325.32108.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5C9CD9E6-92C2-4001-8466-259741B9BF38@gmail.com> <9B644B07-AED9-4A94-B192-C2242B62EB20@cisco.com> <15BF0235-E6E6-492E-9409-31082596F166@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <15BF0235-E6E6-492E-9409-31082596F166@sobco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.123]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_77B829A6-1DE8-4F1D-8933-48DFC128B014"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Hipmf0-BR3VwoceUtydYyRTAMzo>
Cc: IETF Trustees <trustees@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 23:24:01 -0000

No disagreement, but I don't know that it answers the question of whom it should be reported to. The IAOC has no way to replace a member of the trust except through its own membership. It could kick out a member of the IAOC, who would have to be replaced, but replacing them is the responsibility of whoever sent them in the first place, which might be the province of the IAB, the IESG, ISOC, or the nomcom.

> On Mar 29, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
> 
> see previous note - if someone were to be doing the kicking off it should be the IAOC
> which would automatically kick the person off the Trust and leave a vacancy that could
> be filled
> 
> if the trust were to kick someone off it would be down a trustee with no mechanism for the
> vacancy to be filled
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure I understand it either, but at the same time I'm not sure whom they SHOULD report it to. It does seem like it should be reported. Issue a press release? Send an email to ietf@ietf.org? IETF+IAB? Whom?
>> 
>> Note, BTW, that as currently structured, a report to the IAOC is a somewhat vacuous action. The members of the IAOC and the members of the Trust are the same set of people.
>> 
>>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Overall I think this is a good idea and this seems to me to be a reasonable policy, with one exception.
>>> 
>>> At the end it says:
>>> 
>>> "If the Trustees decide by unanimous vote of the Trustees then in office (other than the Trustee in question) that the Trustee had in fact purposefully failed to disclose a significant possible conflict of interest, the Trustees shall bar the Trustee from participating (in person or remotely) in any ongoing matters related to the potential conflict and review past decisions that may have been unduly influenced by the Trustee in conflict. The Trustees shall report any such bar and the results of any such review to the IAOC for potential action. The Trustees may also decide by unanimous vote of the Trustees then in office (other than the Trustee in question) that a conflict of interest reported by a Trustee is of such a nature as to require the Trustee to refrain from all Trust activities.  The Trustees shall report any such determination to the IAOC for potential action.”
>>> 
>>> The IETF Trust is not part of the IAOC, nor is the IAOC responsible for the IETF trust.  That is, the IAOC is not above the IETF Trust.  Given this, I don’t understand the text I cited above.
>>> 
>>> Please explain.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bob
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 10:52 AM, The IETF Trust <ietf-trust@ietf.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The IETF Trust would like community input on a proposed Conflict of
>>>> Interest Policy.
>>>> 
>>>> The trustees of a legal trust entity, such as the IETF Trust, should
>>>> be subject to a conflict of interest policy.  Accordingly, the
>>>> Trustees are considering this policy for adoption.
>>>> 
>>>> The policy discusses the following:
>>>> 1.  Application of Policy
>>>> 2.  Conflict of Interest
>>>> 3.  Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
>>>> 4.  Procedures for Review of Potential Conflicts
>>>> 5.  Violations of Conflict of Interest Policy
>>>> 
>>>> The proposed Conflicts of Interest Policy is located here:
>>>> http://trustee.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Trust-Conflict-Policy-18March2016.htm
>>>> 
>>>> The Trustees will consider all comments received by 13 April 2016.
>>>> 
>>>> Ray Pelletier
>>>> Trustee
>>>> IETF Administrative Director
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>