|
Given that IAB is in the appeals chain
for protocols standards and other items, and has in the past
dabbled with personnel decisions, focusing simply on finance
and/or personnel seems short sighted.
I'm wondering whether it may be time to
add the COI disclosures of any I* candidate to the list of
material that has to be provided to the Nomcom and to make
questions about those disclosures fair game for the Nomcom in
selecting a slate.
While I appreciate Brian's pointer to
BCP 39, it's become clear to me at least that the aspirational
goal of "we participate as individuals" is not universally adhered
to by all candidates to the various leadership positions. I can't
read minds to know which are, or aren't going to behave with that
goal in mind. This leads me to believe that a scaled up COI
process has become more necessary across the board.
With respect to the current proposal -
it's probably close to good enough, with the exception that
"Covered individuals ... or third party gain" probably needs the
dual of this - you can't use your position for your own (you,
family, company, employer,funder) gain, or to cause a loss to a
competitor. Also - You get the benefit of the doubt if you've
publicly disclosed the conflict even if you take actions that
might benefit them (working for X on a protocol that's near and
dear to Xs bottom line but not taking place on the IESG voting for
example). If you take any actions related to a redacted disclosee
you have to show affirmatively (maybe register a statement with
the lawyers) that those actions are not anti-competative or you
must recuse.
Just some thoughts - Mike
On 1/9/2020 11:57 AM, Richard Barnes
wrote:
I would propose the IAB not adopt this policy, or at least
scope it way down.
Much of the IAB's work is focused on technical issues, at a
high enough strategic level that the impacts to specific
people or companies are highly attenuated. In those
discussions, the IAB's work benefits from having diverse
opinions, including the opinions of those who have skin in the
game. Trying to introduce some notion of CoI in this context
would be harmful -- because there's no hard conflict, it will
inevitably be vague, and thus primarily a tool for IAB members
to try to silence one another or a cause for IAB members to
self-censor.
Where the IAB is directly involved in finance or personnel
decisions, there of course should be guards against self
dealing. That's where any CoI policy for the IAB should stop.
--Richard
Dear Colleagues,
The IAB is considering adoption of the
conflict of interest policy below. If you have comments
on this draft policy, please send them to iab@xxxxxxx.
best regards,
Ted Hardie
for the IAB
INTERNET ARCHITECTURE BOARD CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
This policy covers the nomcom-selected Internet
Architecture Board (IAB) members and ex-officio members
(collectively, “Covered Individuals”). This policy has no
impact on any other participants in IAB activities, for
instance liaisons to and from the IAB or IAB program
members.
In carrying out their IAB role, Covered Individuals must
act in the best interest of the Internet community.
Occasionally this duty may be—or may appear to
be—incompatible or in conflict with a Covered Individual’s
personal interests (including interests of their family
members), or the interests of an organization of which the
Covered Individual is an employee, director, owner, or
otherwise has business or financial interest. If a Covered
Individual has a conflict of interest for whatever reason,
that individual must avoid participating in the work of
the IAB that touches on the related matter.
The IAB does not directly deal with matters relating to
contracts or finance. The IAB does, however, have a role
in personnel decisions, and its decisions and outputs have
a potential to indirectly affect contracts within the IETF
system. IAB's technical decisions and outputs have also a
potential to impact both work elsewhere in the IETF and
businesses that employ or develop Internet technology.
Covered Individuals shall not use the IAB’s resources or
decisions as a means for personal or third-party gain.
Disclosure of Actual or Potential Conflicts
The IAB requires that all Covered Individuals disclose
their main employment, sponsorship, consulting customer,
or other sources of income when joining the IAB or
whenever there are updates.
In addition, when a topic is discussed at the IAB, the
Covered Individuals are required to promptly disclose if
that topic constitutes a perceived or potential conflict
of interest. Once disclosed, Covered Individuals may
recuse from participation in discussions or decisions at
their discretion.
The specific conflicts that may cause a perceived or
potential conflict of interest are matters for individual
and IAB judgment, but generally come in the following
forms:
-
A personnel decision relates to the Covered
Individual, a colleague that the Covered Individual's
works closely with, or a family member. For the
purposes of this policy, a "person working closely
with" is someone working in the same team or project,
or a direct manager or employee of the Covered
Individual. And "family" means a spouse, domestic
partner, child, sibling, parent, stepchild,
stepparent, and mother-, father-, son-, daughter-,
brother-, or sister-in-law, and any other person
living in the same household, except tenants and
household employees.
-
A decision or output from the IAB impacts a contract
that the IETF enters into with a party, and that party
relates to the Covered Individual, a colleague that
the Covered Individual's works closely with, or a
family member.
-
Activity on the IAB involves discussion and decisions
regarding technical matters, mainly related to IETF
activities. As an activity adjacent to a
standardization process, it is often the case that
Covered Individuals will have some (frequently
non-financial) stake in the outcome of discussions or
decisions that relate to technical matters. This
policy does not require that Covered Individuals
disclose such conflicts of interest as they relate to
technical matters. However, Covered Individuals need
to exercise their judgment and, in extraordinary cases
be willing to disclose potential or perceived
conflicts of interest even as they relate to technical
matters. For example, if a Covered Individual's
sponsor were in the process of entering a new market
where there is an ongoing IAB discussion, then
disclosure, or even recusal, might be appropriate,
even if difficult.
Disclosure Transparency
A person's recusal to participate in the discussion of a
topic is always noted in the public IAB minutes. In
addition, the IAB will maintain a repository of all
general disclosures of employment and other sponsorship.
It is expected that much of this repository is public, but
there can be situations where some disclosures (such as
customers of consultants) are private.
|
