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

Bob Hinden <> Wed, 30 March 2016 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AA712D6B3; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J4EL1QdxjW6s; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61D9512D561; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g3so59191640ywa.3; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=AdGZwtrP1eFDKKUBxDZcz6wf6VCHm6XOSIpGb+64UEI=; b=fa0X7YJLzyHrF5GY99THnbgkn3csS5iJynuwLpmjKgFR68tgvaM/X3nzuHxXd2G6K+ GTPwv1oLhP71mhQIGY0b7D2GNyOnb88h8g36zV2hgJ5ufzIe7+dDlW/pRULUvDb5YDWj ngjL1cFbOuPgEQo/VgAlNdFjAJDMWFk1lmAWnWZ8HvA6GkUB0X6/VtEhRP6LKIVyF8SM qNBPIGcDAE1GMMcoMMoMzqVItGgS/ajEOKCZyyh/XSLSODDQ7cN5hEjkYbWTiBdhu8u7 Gelzeig7+t6svAkTJYQkZCWFw2T5YPREZ07JLB682lJnGleRA0sARRoq57BxcEVNkIK7 XaUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=AdGZwtrP1eFDKKUBxDZcz6wf6VCHm6XOSIpGb+64UEI=; b=h7oDziF8FqB4goadkfc59pcCWSzLdUurPTtwIgsluzk3MjSJPKf5xuEIqZrSyLHVAw MuOI73n5rv1fGS0zyqszRnG4UAu2Gna4BlSN3nJnA2i6m28KaaeoPFGLGNa8xE8XWaq5 hLhl0KXRh0dMkfZX+lG1VnMVEQ8LE+ZBtBKx58ROwYPKlad/4GTPvtzhp12EM9UVCv16 apSbgaan7JRZ9U76Q8PppepYgP9gIZR5svTX1ekrHJaITWJJamyN++6xMAleFRkk5IAg TmVx5/Yo9ttgmMT8VTdpAtseEMRg0gU4uKUdVBAa9/zRS++Cy66nW3DGPjxuoMyFjcYy ytow==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJyLyzlGwisrXvv7hn4OF/A2AVAaed8cpO5EwmiRaDDbHhlV7bs68CnUF1ykoR2Rg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id b127mr4471271ywc.127.1459346225639; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4d00:abf0:59fa:a3e3:4862:17d1? ([2601:647:4d00:abf0:59fa:a3e3:4862:17d1]) by with ESMTPSA id w185sm2518008ywe.1.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Trust Conflict of Interest Policy for Community Review
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E420F3CF-DA05-4DCD-9125-6E81A2F7615B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Bob Hinden <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:56:55 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Brian Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Trustees <>, Bob Hinden <>, IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:57:11 -0000


> On Mar 29, 2016, at 6:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
> Actually we have running code proof that the existing mechanism
> (a recall) is cumbersome but that the active threat of applying
> it can be sufficient to trigger a resignation.
> As I read the relevant scrolls, neither the IAOC nor the Trust
> itself can kick anybody out. For good reason: due process.
> So the report might travel via the IAOC, but it clearly must
> be a report to the community, after which people might choose
> to initiate a recall.

Then I think the IETF Trust might as well just report it to the community directly.  I don’t think adding another step is needed.


>   Brian
> On 30/03/2016 12:32, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>> the process in the IAOC needs to be developed & vetted by the community - the IAOC needs this
>> anyway - we have running code (when an IAOC member went AWOL) that the current mechanism
>> is not enough
>> but having a single place that a process needs to be defined & vetted (the IAOC) is
>> better than having two (IAOC & Trust)
>> Scott
>>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:23 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <> wrote:
>>> 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 <> 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) <> 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+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 <> 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 <> 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:
>>>>>>> The Trustees will consider all comments received by 13 April 2016.
>>>>>>> Ray Pelletier
>>>>>>> Trustee
>>>>>>> IETF Administrative Director