Hi John, > On May 3, 2019, at 6:44 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --On Friday, May 3, 2019 20:31 +0100 Stephen Farrell > <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> Hiya, >> >> On 03/05/2019 19:55, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote: >>> >>> The LLC Board manages a budget, oversees the Executive >>> director, and worries about getting sponsors to contribute >>> funding to the IETF. It is not engaged in setting IETF >>> technical direction in any way. It's the actual work of the >>> IETF that I'm far more concerned about COI. >> >> Fair point. Though the potential conflicts that might be >> likely for LLC board members might qualitatively differ >> from those that'd be most tricky for IESG or IAB (or WG >> chairs or document authors). And it could be that the >> potential conflicts for LLC board members are better >> understood generally? > > Yes. In addition, it really isn't hard to imagine decisions by > the LLC Board and Executive Director that would affect the > standards process. The most obvious are choices of meeting > sites and resources (including facilities for community members > with special needs or requirements) and facilities available for > remote participants, but the RFC Editor budget interacts with > publication of standards and hence the standards process as > well. Good or bad choices about Secretariat contractors (or > employees?) do too. > > It may not be "engaged in setting IETF technical direction in > any way", but it certainly makes decisions and sets directions > that could have an impact on those decisions. The difference > feels to me like hair-splitting. > >>> COI would seem much more relevant for IAB and IESG and even >>> the NOMCOM itself which actually have the ability to set or >>> influence IETF decisions and direction. Yet we do not >>> require any public disclosure of COI from any of those >>> positions. >> >> Perhaps we ought? I'd be for discussing it (and for it). > > It has been suggested before. IIR, the IESG didn't want > anything to do with the idea. Part of the reason is that, as > long as we believe (or pretend to believe) that all technical > work in the IETF is done by individuals without organizational > commitments that might conflict with their roles or decisions in > the IETF, one doesn't need a COI policy because, by definition, > no one has any. I should not speculate on the rest of the > reasons, if any, other than to observe that there have been few > instances of IESGs over the years voting to make themselves more > accountable. Since this topic was raised at IETF 103, the IESG discussed it and Ben Campbell took an action to work up some draft text. Unfortunately with the AD transition it was a busy time and we weren’t able to progress this, but Barry has picked up the token to track this on the IESG [1] and we have it on our action items list [2]. Alissa [1] https://www6.ietf.org/iesg/minutes/2019/narrative-minutes-2019-04-11.txt [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/ > >> But even if we don't (immediately), there's nothing wrong >> with the LLC board getting ahead of the game and providing >> a good example for the other laggards:-) > > Not just that, but, as we've been told repeatedly in other > contexts, there is a legal requirement for the LLC Board to have > such policies. The question with the IESG and IAB is whether to > have such policies. For the LLC, that question has been > answered and the only remaining issue is what should be > disclosed and to whom. > > john > > >
