I agree with Stephen and others. We could probably just add
something in the BCP saying that the IAOC should define and publish
an appropriate conflict of interest policy and leave it up to them.
Margaret
Thus spake "Leslie Daigle" <leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com>
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> I was thinking more of ongoing contracts... For instance, let's
> say that we contract with Margaret's Meeting Management
> (MMM -- and no, I am not considering a new career :-)) for
> our meeting planning. Would it be reasonable for someone
> who works for MMM to be an IAOC member? Would
> he/she need to recuse him/herself from every decision having to
> do with meetings?
I think it would be sensible for the IAOC member to resign if
it was a problem. If they didn't resign, and the rest of the IAOC
thought it was a problem, there are recall measures (because it could
be construed as abrogation of IAOC duties).
We can require that the IAOC establish rules for dealing with conflicts of
interest, and if a member does not follow them (or perhaps does so too
frequently) they can be recalled; if that fails, particular decisions can be
appealed by the community. IMHO, this is enough.
We cannot predict every possible conflict or the most appropriate action in
each case -- nor should we try to codify such details in the BCP even if we
could. The BCP overall has evolved a tone of general guidance and public
oversight, not micromanagement, and that seems appropriate here too.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf