[arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy

[Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>]

Dear architecture-discuss,

(I am reading on "Architecture in Cyberspace":)


Networks of Interests in Cyberspace, in Internet:

The conflict of interest policy above attempted by IAB means an attempt for
a resources management, that is about managing conflicts of interests in
such a way of defining tolerances if there are those conflicts happening
among "covered members" of an organizational bodies working on Internet
technologies...--an attempt that is exclusive to "covered members" of an
organizational body...

Yet, as what was mentioned above is about the ethic, architecture comes
with aesthetic considerations also: such appreciations for, with
considerations on laws and principles of, beauties realized in arts:
architecture in cyberscape is spatialized music. There are compositional
filters made up by the intentions of the architects and perceptual capacity
of the viewers. Together the aesthetic and the ethic set values, interests,
of the beholders, for a liquid architecture in cyberspace: it is about
places of welcomes and defences of "me"...(1)


(1) Novak, Marcos, "Liquid Architecture in Cyberspace"

https://www.evl.uic.edu/datsoupi/coding/readings/1991_Novak_Liquid.pdf

Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Senin, 13 Januari 2020, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
menulis:

> On 13-Jan-20 09:28, Christian Huitema wrote:
> >
> > On 1/12/2020 9:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> BCP 39 makes it fairly clear that the IAB does not need a separate COI
> policy. This text was inserted on legal advice from Jorge Contreras, as the
> IETF's pro bono counsel at the time, who said it was intended to 'protect
> IAB members from personal liability for IAB decisions (particularly in view
> of the last paragraph, stating that they serve as "individuals")':
> >>
> >>>    Members of the IAB shall serve as individuals, and not as
> >>>    representatives of any company, agency, or other organization.
> >>>    Members of the IAB shall owe no fiduciary duty of loyalty or care to
> >>>    IAB, IETF, IRTF or IESG.
> >> The last sentence in particular seems to make a formal COI policy
> unnecessary and possibly harmful. Wouldn't such a policy nullify that
> protection that IAB members have had since May 2000?
> >
> > Brian, it is not obvious that this paragraph in RFC2850/BCP39 implies
> that "a formal COI policy is unnecessary and possibly harmful". I
> understand why you would say that, but it requires some level of reading
> between the lines.
> >
> > You are implicitly suggesting that the current attempt at writing a COI
> policy for the IAB be scrapped. That may well be very good advice. After
> all, we might say that what is expected from members of the IAB is exactly
> the same as what is expected from participants in the IETF in general. But,
> however well founded that advice may be, we will need some more explanation.
>
> Exactly why I asked about legal advice. The *ethical* aspect is probably
> not contentious, and is indeed right there in the charter already.
>
> >
> >> Can we see the legal advice that led to the current proposal?
> >
> > Similarly, if the text in RFC 2850 comes from past debates in the IAB,
> can you point us to the minutes of these debates?
>
> I'm on travel, so I can't easily search the archives, but it would have
> been late 1999 or early 2000. I did quote verbatim Jorge's comment from my
> own email archive, and I doubt if any of us would have gone against his
> advice in those days.
>
>    Brian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>