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

Stephen Farrell <> Tue, 29 March 2016 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB7C12D9F4; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66IQTpZBxnwG; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98AC812E079; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EFE3BE54; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:50:06 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id afocIXvGg7_W; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:50:04 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35A2CBE33; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:50:04 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1459284604; bh=CtPyuPtZpyNdqPhOw1safsA2NcKUyNYnIMNEGtEkp0M=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=3nuhu4uW26jtRyERyN2hf9jZPQr0oSnj1jZRI9hu3yf2ZFUSmDYCfQvobbi1LDLp1 v1i5FI+bSyAJWf3NFsuJty4L02jg1jbgEmLClKlISLWoPKDBjCIbN+1z56cSMRF5Kg WvqqVYMc7iDzsIUWUq3V3nEQPSjw3fGT3HxtSOU0=
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Trust Conflict of Interest Policy for Community Review
References: <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:50:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms060107010005060003010403"
Archived-At: <>
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: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:14:44 -0000


On 29/03/16 18:52, The IETF Trust wrote:
> The IETF Trust would like community input on a proposed Conflict of
> Interest Policy.

Thanks for posting this.

I've two (not that simple:-) questions:

- Why isn't this aiming to end up being a document subject to IETF
  consensus? I can imagine there may be good or bad reasons for
  either doing this via the IETF process or not doing it via the
  IETF process, but I wondered - it seems like this is not just
  some minor operational thing, and considering these issues and
  aiming to get IETF consensus on how/when to declare conflicts
  of interest could be useful more generally. Is there something
  substantially different about the trust in this respect vs.
  other IETF roles such as chair, author, AD etc?

- Some trustees are selected by nomcom or other bodies. Wouldn't
  those proposing themselves for selection need to say something
  about known conflicts to selecting bodies like nomcom, so that
  we don't select folks who are conflicted out of being useful?
  And doesn't that mean that the list of conflicts needs to be
  public? And why shouldn't it be public? (Or did you intend it
  to be public? I wasn't sure.)


> 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