From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Ben Campbell <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> > 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 [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. [JL] So IMO it seems like some CoI policy for the IAB is better than no CoI policy.
