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

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 30 March 2016 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A41912DC33; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:58:38 -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 ZYahrznvLw6l; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C24A12DC48; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n5so29112271pfn.2; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n3fZgqv3UNBdG3Iyxf+8LlB/bo0WhWdnqw7q3BlHZXY=; b=mP49HgZ8SQpoNHQCArrcpBw3HfJ6zOVR0tfipKCiGNJOCXz7rb9cF4hLFuE89FBdDg LyMSel1aUsGCqG3cKqlEb6K+G/6shQYy3ihzrdrGt8XUBbQuwBeMM20uKk6XU95tY86y bewa09/HX3LhyKvwGs9cXIOeVfYV1W3a1hqm5CJvZYJRCEwnHj3xFP1VxXz14bZf3ZN+ kxU68+VeBQJrEE6m5roQs5DGyCFkfJc6IRZRBkn+TAiUEM6bLbQV2Sxy3YfIfk4i6q79 lmcehBVz7ht21MY5q8GOCWPq2/v/wrbjuuAcDfUpvSOhMm3tJX/oQVNq6d6cXf86sGzo w4aA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=n3fZgqv3UNBdG3Iyxf+8LlB/bo0WhWdnqw7q3BlHZXY=; b=cDcnSDSH8Wg/t6Gc/5CyFG9aYnGhSJmYuY9sWrXWWBy4IM7rSF86z8Wc+2qpZEPM2+ Z3wK63odLZvUjI6/RIqM705ngQod6GfixE8r6Gq3WjeMQzDBgryFrqUgd+nKxzNA01ll +r4D/HLTHGgHEdaPZJCuOmTzvhQ2q0/pIVm4oV1tdN2NcEzTgJWZgLHwmr1sckwYNxVV Y0z/BHVZd5rP9s8N+YcPp1TH/3cWpDF/5kESQBL9nej4PUBIDSQiGvSaMr6Lrm9YtOvm yB6cDY8kbIDyJyN0xJGzVAI/4myZYFpRQuKkATN4dZ5A5M1W1qfSGsrWGEU+yNh52GdO vGTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLmtCtI9SPCYjBqZKTVb+gFz2UhXlxhmKWMSY2lbHqPp4m3HICcdhBQxyKbnj44Sg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id a1mr8741240pfj.39.1459303115274; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by with ESMTPSA id fa3sm1187426pab.45.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Trust Conflict of Interest Policy for Community Review
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <>, Fred Baker <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:58:34 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 01:58:38 -0000

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.

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