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

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 30 March 2016 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8202D12DDDF; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 01:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=KaWlGI0H; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=ZLGk61+4
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R4d6KDkadYUv; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 01:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB5B12DD02; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 01:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2U81ZhF025774 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 01:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1459324906; x=1459411306; bh=MRvfKTQFUHKW03zqh1r63GBsZtCvVjirYqMDW8SjcpI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=KaWlGI0HCa5iFhl//u3Xp2X/3TuKDO8VO5nwbfqa46MyIwb2INwoU4IfbTTWWriTV xLz1A0YgAqNc+w65FagMmSkQexg52YGwwfE9z5pikOr8kun/eokU9gZCG77OOdqHdt t27DP+a8URzfJs2XdLeHwm+lMDOFGcxncpUTKRc8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1459324906; x=1459411306;; bh=MRvfKTQFUHKW03zqh1r63GBsZtCvVjirYqMDW8SjcpI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZLGk61+4kzpGDPhRrvJIKt0IZazsE9Z9ITXWdg1juL/73+2Ptao8p8dzeVVGg1EAL FdzNNd6kZoGTHaLUJnyRyp++OO3vDgGLeqd2wkKrU1h6P0pdtP6mKMX8IH0EXrKkIJ MOYHdcfeHPvP/tdb14mBWsi6IHfzBiFkoUp2YYC4=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:53:11 -0700
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Trust Conflict of Interest Policy for Community Review
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:01:50 -0000

At 10:52 29-03-2016, The IETF Trust wrote:
>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.

Section 7.2 of the Trust Agreement is as follows:

   "Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement all decisions of the
    Trustees must be approved by majority vote of the Trustees then in

Part V of the proposed policy states that: "If the Trustees decide by 
unanimous vote of the Trustees then in office (other than the Trustee 
in question)" ...

There seems to be a mismatch in the above.

   "The Trustees shall report any such determination to the IAOC for
    potential action."

I suggest that the report be sent to the IETF Community to be aligned 
with BCP 101.  The Trustees would already be taking action if they 
were to prevent an Eligible Person from participating in Trust activities.

S. Moonesamy