On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote: > ... > > I agree with the notion that all folks in positions of perceived power > (e.g. IAB, IESG, WG Chairs, IRTF Chair) should be required to disclose > publicly > all of their relationships (e.g. employment, presence on other > Internet-related > positions such as board of a registry, technical advisory board > memberships, > and so forth) that might possibly be conflicts of interest. The goal > should be > to err on the side of too much disclosure, rather than too little. I am opposed to such a radical change. The goal should be that, when necessary, actual problems demonstrated by actions are addressed, not to indulge in the usual ever spiraling increase in paperwork load and bureaucratic nonsense. No normal human being can ever make a disclosure complete enough to withstand a denial-of-service attack though the endless nit-picking of trivial errors and omissions nor would any normal human being ever want to wade through any of the diarrheal "too much disclosure" documents you advocate. They would, presumably, have to include details of all amorous relationships and sexual acts performed with anyone who has any opinion on matters before the IETF, since such acts can produce conflicts of interest between sound technical judgment and a desire to please such partners. And shouldn't they also be required to disclose all "relationships that might be a conflict of interest" for all of their relatives by blood or marriage? After all, they might be indirectly influence by such connections. This is the same nonsense as demands that transcripts of all communications on items before the IETF be made public, including hallway conversations, telephone calls, etc., etc., etc. > Lack of such disclosure is currently a problem with the current > IETF/IESG/IAB structure. I'm not generally a fan of more process or > more > rules, but I think this one should be required not optional. Members of the IESG and IAB are selected by the IETF community and specifically undertake to act in the best interests of the IETF community. If they were proven not to be acting so, based on specific actions, not vague handwaving about conflicts, they can be removed. That's enough for me. Someone who was a fan of more process, paperwork, and rules would certainly advocate total disclosure, which is only an inviation to add endless debate about the completeness, details, and timeliness of the disclosure while failing to eliminate any of the complaints about conflicts. People with good technical arguments make technical arguments. Some people who have lost technically wave their hands about conflicts of interest. Some people who have lost techncially and can't even find a conflict would love to slow everything down and create a burden of paperwork so they can then complain about nits in the paperwork, and there will always be nits in the paperwork. Lets not give them that pleasure. > Ran > rja@extremenetworks.com Donald PS: For real examples of the problems I suggest with this idea, see the past proceedings of the FCC where radio broadcast licneses are being decided between applicants. Its routine for applicants to hire detectives to dig up any dirt they can on the other applicant's people and then to argue that their application should be rejected because they didn't reveal the dirt voluntarily in public filings with the FCC even when, as is almost always the case, there is no regulation prohibiting applicants with that particular dirt. Vague "complete" disclosure rules are routinely used as weapons in this manner. Do we really want to eliminate the privacy of all persons in responsible IETF positions? ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com