Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 09 January 2020 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017571200B4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 06:44:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C8GOHhqDEgey for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 06:44:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91B501200D8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 06:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id u1so7510622ljk.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 06:44:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7pEweHIiSZh8B78Wmp8vnjz0ng3w/M96pSNbAnYI3JA=; b=ZQIwSHwlJEvh2ykkde9ST8YEsmwpYzg2E9HZ5uabVmVzXvIMzirTXHSoWVUBoU9C0T StNIBP9xbXc3xR+xuELE6AOIxO7nfieM236Mt/ZMnSsY5k/SX7GQvCfd5MJu+B8sSeZe 6kPns3d/Fe2G8Q4IJAJZ3Vh6Cix+tr24V99Fq94AvutP1NHNuVhNFhmShUhH02FF0ykW rtonL5aHRyLvx5dpstZpK+sgc5InMh7mBbiThR/T2odxPfwFja3bUGIhpR+OdJziwYx1 2o1vsLfDecWG590SzxhubXzn9vS00yePEkJpRC55jgpzZlzQf/SiF18ahEX7Dpb3sxwj l35A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7pEweHIiSZh8B78Wmp8vnjz0ng3w/M96pSNbAnYI3JA=; b=nEnMD3+AVeyrtSlMzFbwkKQFSTkCSRHGwreNiCwwFhRBfq8dTrBmSp2x+IbbrV382m gwGtpaGZb36adFcEgOiecMp/QyeTDkt63KTevdjr5/mWa/3JbFvfjCvsPevB1eNewane aAB9a1eA0aHDv3CJeMPBdK6iisdr/LswtR1zhueQUoIJ8GmfqxdUL5kUk0e4/YHXP46O Ofr73ZISxqnc1CTrpE91GzWVze4m0BVyRXL6tmfoFZ+eXtwZ4Ml6sulzokRf21Lpg/d3 bTtDWfFsUs3Nm1GeujwWbM9pIje6eKkY+2IzVIoF+gy9t983n2L8VAtWdkewpU6MY4Xv YhFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXc0YGoQTTeQVqb8gL3boGKdTgvxj/xXzAl7I+KGsNrFvQ+OoDZ TNz4JYcgSfJk3ymPQ0PPobu/u4lgTqwFbCi9XQZURQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyQltGeoytUWPXkU1Evktqm5VcVesRaOZFlxjaJpRIqmzS2+3ZNKKUCu+YLYsoDwAFUUfMqd3K+Z7xU8SjKPF8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:88c5:: with SMTP id a5mr6899536ljk.201.1578581063639; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 06:44:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4e888f0a-a1e8-df72-cbbc-9a2e2f0d0d05@iab.org> <1E62D045-4171-41D6-858A-C277C947AD05@gmail.com> <FA8D82402CD1DCD103D93E43@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <FA8D82402CD1DCD103D93E43@PSB>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 06:43:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMPckhi66RVjXRqaSgW-tdWwup8exjw0KUB9ubZBqZ4-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>, "iab@iab.org IAB" <iab@iab.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008c42df059bb60bc0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ucMc_fi9YbbP5bxRihN2nebjNeE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 14:44:29 -0000

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 6:29 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Thursday, January 9, 2020 13:14 +0000 Stewart Bryant
> <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 8 Jan 2020, at 23:14, IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> > Is this to be a public or a private register of interests?
>
> Stewart's question is important for what may be an additional
> reason.  There is a fairly long history of IAB members who often
> show up as "independent" but who are full-time consultants with
> multiple clients (as distinct from those who serve in
> consulting, rather than employee, roles but with one principal
> client).  They may have, in the words of the draft, no "main
> employment, sponsorship, consulting customer, ...".  In those
> situations, it isn't terribly unusual for consulting agreements
> to contain requirements that the relationship not be disclosed
> by either party without mutual consent.  I've had little trouble
> getting consent when there is a substantive reason that doesn't
> threaten the reasons for the confidentiality provision and there
> are provisions to keep the information from becoming generally
> known, but completely public disclosures would probably not fly.
>
> I'd assume that someone working for, or a principal of, a
> stealth startup might face similar constraints.
>
> While I applaud the IAB's coming to grips with this issue, let's
> be sure we don't do anything that limits the diversity or range
> of skills and perspectives of people who can serve on  the IAB
> as an accidental side-effect of a well-intentioned policy.
>

This seems like an important point. In addition, it's not clear to me as
I read this text how I am supposed to read "main.... or other sources
of income". Surely the intention is not that people disclose all other
sources of income.

-Ekr


>    john
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>