Hi Jay,
At 09:01 PM 12-10-2020, Jay Daley wrote:
There's a lot here and it's not clear to me if your questions are
because you have specific concerns with the policy that I should be
tracking as issues.
I would like to understand what is being proposed before getting to concerns.
> Why is the IETF LLC specifying that the policy would be
applicable for Association Management Solutions personnel when it
is already covered under "Work Standards"?
It isn't.
Please see Section 1(b):
https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_AMS_Secretariat_Agreement_FULL_-_2020_-_EXECUTED_REDACTED.pdf
It states that "Contractor agrees to comply with all IETF LLC
policies, as provided by IETF LLC to Contractor from time to time."
> Does the "occasionally include contributing to or authoring RFCs"
statement conflict with the Intellectual Property clause in existing contracts?
No.
That is not my reading of Section 8 of the "redacted contract" which
states that the "Work Product" is owned by the IETF Trust.
> Why is Association Management Solutions being asked to be
supportive and helpful?
As a reminder, the policy is based on roles not who delivers them
and covers multiple roles:
"When contributing to community discussions for any of these
subjects, staff, Secretariat and RPC should aim to be supportive and
helpful to the process and should not limit or otherwise interfere
with the ability of the community to engage."
Do you think that there are times when we (all the roles above,
including me) should engage in a way that is not supportive and helpful?
Your question is about who delivers the service. I would expect the
entity managing the contract to determine what type of customer
support is required. It would be unexpected if customer support is
not helpful.
> Why are there urgent consultations?
Sometimes we need to act quickly. For example, the last urgent
consultation was about making fee waivers for IETF 108 unlimited and
had to be conducted in 48 hours due to the fixed timing of the
meeting. It is conceivable there will be another and putting some
structure in place before that happens again is a sensible plan.
That was a one-off case. If it recurs, it could be because of
inadequate planning. Such statements would make sense if the goal is
to tick the compliance checkboxes.
> Why is the IETF LLC so concerned about staff or contractors
retaliating against a LLC board member that it has to include that
in the proposed policy?
This is a broad policy that covers a number of subjects of which
NomCom interaction is just one. BTW ascribing/questioning motives,
particularly with an emotive preface such as "so concerned",
distracts from your underlying question.
I asked someone from the United States to review my question for
appropriateness. The person did not find anything emotive in the sentence.
Does the "use the NomCom process to retaliate against a LLC board
member ..." ascribe motives?
>
> The "clear potential for a conflict of interest" in the "NomCom"
section does not make sense as it is not applicable to a process.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean - the process is the NomCom
appointment process.
The prohibited conflicts (please see conflict of interest policy) is
about actions, relationships or transactions, instead of a process.
The IETF LLC has a strong commitment to transparency, which the
community has repeatedly requested and/or supported. Until recently
we have not really had stats about blog readership and so we err on
the side of caution by also using ietf-announce to make sure that
transparency commitment is fulfilled.
The IETF LLC is increasing the number of emails to subscribers by
erring on the side of caution. It is like using every possible
mailing list because the IETF LLC can do it.
Were the conflict of interest disclosures sent to ietf-announce?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
