Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 09 January 2020 20:21 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 A92701202A0; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:21:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.279
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, MAY_BE_FORGED=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 5rL2k6dgv6hp; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:21:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 AA6A91207FB; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:21:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.127.239] (mta-70-120-123-175.stx.rr.com [70.120.123.175] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 009KKxBS083665 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:21:00 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1578601261; bh=AYngZb7tiZbxHzxKuE5CNWyrK8ezrccy59R5HlsI2RU=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=fs1xqOuufkcefuDNk7cx+4Ct0X3YhuhNG1P/N8/S30qsDn5BBkZ3tUycpLi1DYnK9 cenmR4EAPis0gRLilsfzRPoW9dc5YNoXTjlUB7SSBol++52p+DDb4vMo8KVLEWY40I xVz/X+J5Hi++T5XzN8ei0zgg43jh9qvDYoNi1JUU=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host mta-70-120-123-175.stx.rr.com [70.120.123.175] (may be forged) claimed to be [192.168.127.239]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <87973F7E-A12D-4DEC-A490-475B7C3BFF34@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_287540C7-2546-498F-9E77-720FC12B4308"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 14:20:50 -0600
In-Reply-To: <73739D2E-EE15-4D49-8E99-0BAA79838548@cable.comcast.com>
Cc: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>, IAB IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>
References: <32C49B6D-8F72-4B6C-B23C-E5E22ACAA198@nostrum.com> <CCC412BC-6F01-4165-8DEC-022E3EC7080A@strayalpha.com> <79623A46-F585-4DD1-B4CA-C12967E7EE1B@nostrum.com> <73739D2E-EE15-4D49-8E99-0BAA79838548@cable.comcast.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wPLib9k8y8xMUoPVZbq_ku_Nj80>
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 20:21:06 -0000
> On Jan 9, 2020, at 2:07 PM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> wrote: > > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> >> I agree with that for the IESG, but the IAB is not usually in a position to approve or block specific technical decisions. Yes, it sets architectural direction, but see Richard’s comment down-thread. > > [JL] Perhaps we are thinking too narrowly about what the IAB does? Here are some areas for potential conflict that are unrelated to architectural direction: > 1 - Confirming the IETF Chair and Area Directors > 2 - Standards appeals > 3 - RFC Series > 4 - Liaison roles > 5 - Advice to ISOC I think a good part of those categories are covered by the sections on personnel and contract CoIs. I agree with those sections in principle. > > [JL] Even in architectural oversight, what if there was a strong push for a particular approach against a particular protocol or codec and someone on the IAB had an undisclosed financial stake in a patent pool that would directly benefit from a certain decision? Or if they "worked" for a university but were 100% funded by a grant from a government that was underwriting their time specifically to work against a specific upgrade to encryption? Or whatever other cases you might imagine. I think the IPR pool example is already covered by the IETF IPR policies. I assume those will continue to apply. (And I suppose a reminder of them in any such CoI policy would not be a bad thing.) In the govt grant example: Is the issue not also true for someone pushing similar views in, say, the TLS wg? It seems to me that an effort to undermine a specific upgrade would be done more effectively at the wg level than in the IAB. That all being said, I’m almost okay with the proposed text that effectively says “IAB members should use their judgement to decide if they have a problem”, but that doesn’t seem to need to be said in a written policy (unless it’s purpose is to explain why we don’t say more.) > > [JL] So IMO it seems like some CoI policy for the IAB is better than no CoI policy. > I am not arguing for no policy. I agree in principle with the other two bullets. Ben.
- Draft IAB conflict of interest policy IAB Chair
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Stewart Bryant
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy John C Klensin
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Eric Rescorla
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Stewart Bryant
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Alvaro Retana
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Joe Touch
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Warren Kumari
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Stephen Farrell
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Richard Barnes
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Ben Campbell
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Salz, Rich
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Salz, Rich
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Joe Touch
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Eric Rescorla
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Ben Campbell
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Livingood, Jason
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Livingood, Jason
- Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of… Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Ben Campbell
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Livingood, Jason
- Re: [arch-d] [EXTERNAL] Re: Draft IAB conflict of… Mary Barnes
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Joe Touch
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Bernard Aboba
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Eric Rescorla
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Joe Touch
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Marc Blanchet
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Eliot Lear (elear)
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Pete Resnick
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Stewart Bryant
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Cullen Jennings
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Bernard Aboba
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Christian Huitema
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Brian E Carpenter
- [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Michael StJohns
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Michael StJohns
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Rob Sayre
- RE: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Roni Even (A)
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Eliot Lear (elear)
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Robert Raszuk
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Randy Bush
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Salz, Rich
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Randy Bush
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Salz, Rich
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Jared Mauch
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Toerless Eckert
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Randy Bush
- Re: Draft IAB conflict of interest policy Jay Daley
- ISOC and PIR board analogies (Was Re: Draft IAB c… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: ISOC and PIR board analogies (Was Re: Draft I… Randy Bush
- Re: ISOC and PIR board analogies (Was Re: Draft I… Randy Bush
- Re: ISOC and PIR board analogies (Was Re: Draft I… Jay Daley
- Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy John C Klensin
- Re: ISOC and PIR board analogies (Was Re: Draft I… John C Klensin
- Re: ISOC and PIR board analogies (Was Re: Draft I… Livingood, Jason