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

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Tue, 29 March 2016 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 D8CF112D557; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 cjYrH4QzcsGV; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D3DF12D538; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931491A31317; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:17:39 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ySvU2f-UEHll; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:17:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A20111A31306; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:17:38 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Trust Conflict of Interest Policy for Community Review
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9B644B07-AED9-4A94-B192-C2242B62EB20@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:17:38 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <15BF0235-E6E6-492E-9409-31082596F166@sobco.com>
References: <20160329175254.8325.32108.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5C9CD9E6-92C2-4001-8466-259741B9BF38@gmail.com> <9B644B07-AED9-4A94-B192-C2242B62EB20@cisco.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ne8BnCn065-OLfwtNPY5RYffvGw>
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 23:17:42 -0000

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
>>> 
>> 
>