> >> there as a potential for the appearance of conflicts of > >> interest. Those conflicts need not be of the traditional > >> legal or financial variety. They can occur (or be perceived > >> to occur) when someone's institutional or organizational > >> relationships outside the IETF might lead people to suspect > >> that review and decision-making might not be as careful, > >> unbiased, or primarily reflective of the interest of the IETF > >> or the broader Internet community as we would like it to > >> assume it always is. For situations where troublesome > >> relationships exist or might be inferred (even by those > >> suffering from mild paranoid), we need to get much more > >> careful about disclosure of the relationships involved. > > > > Good point, and I agree. > > > > These waters are going to be difficult to nagivate, but I > > don't see any alternative. > Yes. However, I see some parallel to the IPR situation. We > could presumably treat members of the community like adults (I > think almost all are) and say "if you have an outside-the-IETF > relationship to the developers, or developing organization, of a > spec, you must at least disclose it", it would go a long way > and, IMO, not be particularly difficult. I concur. > Unlike the IPR > situation, this one is unlikely to require involving lawyers in > what one could or could not say/ disclose. I suppose it could pose difficulties for consultants in certain sorts of mixed roles, but to be honest I don't really have much sympathy for people doing that. > The waters get > difficult only if we feel a need to take the next steps toward > forced recusal or worse. Maybe, if we just demanded disclosure > as an expected professional courtesy and act of honesty toward > the rest of the community and understood that either an > undisclosed conflict or a disclosed one that seemed to distort a > decision could be reasonable grounds for appeals, we could get > away without a requirement for a lot of hair-splitting rules. Indeed. Something for the IESG to consider, that's for sure. Ned