Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 6:15 PM IAB Chair <[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 to [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.


I'm a bit concerned by the specificity of these -- the fact that they
are explicitly enumerated implies that everything not listed so just
fine  - for example, my dear Grandma[0] is a leading ASP.NET
developer, and is forming a company - as grandparents are not
excluded, *clearly* I could, as an IAB member, recommend she gets the
contract for rewriting the DT in some shiny new asp based framework.
I'm guessing that this was copied from somewhere else, because I'm
assuming most IAB people won't run into the "household employees"
issue (which is sad, because my personal valet gives good legal
advice, and my butler ties a great Windsor knot, and is also an expert
on long term archival solutions for technical documents).

I *do* realize that this says "perceived or potential conflict of
interest", and so issues like my Grandma should be excluded, but
perhaps something more along the lines of Spencer's "Do the right
thing" tone would be better? Or a combination, with some specificity
but a mention of the list not being wholly inclusive/just a sample or
subset?

W



>
> 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.
>
>
>


--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf