Christian raised a point in discussion at IETF106:

"I'd like us to do some brainstorming to see what a violation of the policy would be. And check whether those are logically covered in the text."

I think that's worth recording as an open issue as discussion of it might help us frame any preamble text or guidance for IAB members as to what to include on their forms.

This seems wrong; I think it reinforces the idea that the IAB is insular and self-serving.

How about "in the best interests of the Internet community"?

Just noting that we had some discussion of whether or not "family" are relevant for the IAB CoI policy. I think that's definitely less of a deal for IAB than LLC board, but might be worth keeping in. OTOH, I think some people seemed uncomfortable with it, so this issue should provide a hook for that discussion. For now, I've left in the text about "family."

The section of the form on other orgs says:

"The names of organizations for which I or a family member serves as a board member, officer, or director, or organizations for which I or a family member is the sole owner, co-owner, controlling shareholder, or significant shareholder (under the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s definition), other than for the IAB for which there is an actual or potential perceived conflict of interest:"

I wonder if we should just drop that last bit and reduce it to:

"The names of organizations for which I or a family member serves as a board member, officer, or director, or organizations for which I or a family member is the sole owner, co-owner, controlling shareholder, or significant shareholder (under the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s definition)":

Seems ok to me to list all board memberships, but maybe that'd be more onerous for some of you than me? And "potential perceived CoI" seems like it could mean "all" in any case:-)

I would suggest limiting "Who is not a covered individual?" to ones where there is actual chance of confusion (e.g., liaisons, program members, Executive Administrative Manager, IRTF Chair, etc.). I think including all the other groups makes things more confusing than clarifying.

Having removed one of the prohibited conflict bits (in response to Mark's issue#3) and looking at it again, maybe we should just delete that section entirely as it mainly relates to the LLC board and money, which we don't much deal with.

Current COI process -- which we have been following even if it is undocumented is about observing a conflict prior to a discussion or a vote, and recusing from that as appropriate. Sometimes by the person, sometimes by someone else making the observation "maybe you nn need to recuse because xyz".

The proposed policy is one of a declaration-based, rather than topic based. It seems frankly difficult to apply, because most of the issues we face come up in the context of selecting people, not handing out contracts, and the people issues are quite dynamic. I don't know who is going to sign up for a liaison or appear in an IESG slate. I don't even necessarily know who my line manager, project leader, or close team member will be next month, as this keeps changing in most modern organizations.

The suggested approach is also declaration-based in the sense that only you can make the declaration and others cannot make suggestions. It is also declaration based in the sense that there seems to be an IAB decision related to a declaration rather than a topic. And that decision is an IAB decision rather than the person's own declaration. Is this necessary? Could we have rather a more per-topic/event based COI policy where everyone has to declare their conflicts at the start of a discussion of a new topic and that the documentation is in the minutes. And there should be a possibility for someone to raise an issue with the stated declarations for a topic, or lack thereof, and then IAB could make a decision that yes nn needs to recuse for this discussion.

I deleted the phrase about "code of conduct" as we don't have one (that I know of:-).
I guess we could replace that with a reference to BCP39 but that also doesn't seem quite right, and in any case the text seems ok without the deleted phrase.

The form asks to disclose:

Other activities I participate in that may be in a similar area of activity as the IAB, or other potential conflicts of interests with my IAB responsibilities:

So, would my chairing of the HTTP and QUIC WGs count as potential conflicts, since they might not see everything the same as the IAB?

I would strongly advise against using things like "(currently 12)" in the text. Using a number doesn't really help anything and only makes updates a pain.

Pending the Board’s review and resolution of a potential conflict of interest, disclosing Covered Individuals will conduct themselves so as to minimize the possible impact of the potential conflict of interest on the IAB.

Is this just a missed incidence of LLC board, or are we assuming that the LLC will review IAB conflicts, or...?

Covered Individuals shall not engage in any outside business, professional conduct, or other activities that are directly adverse to the interests of the IAB.

That seems ... problematic, depending on who is judging "directly adverse", and whether someone's employers' actions are considered in-scope.

Does this include non-voting members (i.e., liaisons and ex-officio officers)?

I think this language is far too subjective to be included: "In carrying out their IAB role, covered Individuals must act in the best interest of the Internet community."