None of the below makes any difference. We do not know what instructions
Vixie has given Austein, and we do not need to know.
The considerations for conflict of interest are well established:
In the case of a conflict with an employment interest, the employee must
recuse themselves to avoid the conflict of interest, and must also avoid
the __appearance__ of a conflict of interest.
In this case, Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect
his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers. The
entire defense by Austein and Vixie are entirely irrelevant: Austein's
employer's instructions are irrelevant, as is how well Austein has
followed those instructions.
Its quite simple: Austein has to avoid the appearance of conflict of
interest. He has to recuse from such activities that would place him in
a conflict. This is one function for co-chairs and Area Directors.
More inline
--Dean
On 9 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > > Mr. Paul Vixie to ISC, and the subordination relationship that can be
> > > inferred from Mr. Paul Vixie's position as ISC president.
> >
> > Paul has never tried to control what I do as DNSOP WG co-chair, and
> > clearly understands the obligations that go with my position. Paul also
> > knows me well enough to know that I'd tell him to go to hell if he ever
> > did try to keep me from performing my duty as I see it, but the issue has
> > never come up and I don't expect it ever will.
>
> assuming for a moment that because rob and i are in the same management
> chain my instructions were ever different than "use your own best
> judgement" even in matters internal to isc (which would indicate that i had
> more time than i actually do, and that rob had more tolerance for
> foolishness than he actually does),
> i wonder if the above inference would
> also apply to suzanne woolf in her position on the icann board and arin
> advisory council, or keith mitchell in his position on the nanog program
> committee and executive director of uknof and programme manager of oarc, or
> any of the other times when isc employees do external public service work.
Yes. This is called "conflict of interest", and serious violations are
bad faith to the organizations being harmed by the conflict.
>
> i don't know if t-m's "inference" is meant as "isc employees are shills" or
> perhaps "all employees are shills", but the idea certainly conflicts with
> my own vision that "whatever it is about someone that makes them useful at
> isc probably makes them useful elsewhere, and if isc's mission is public
> service, then encouraging this kind of public service would be a good
> company policy."
One doesn't prove anyone is a shill to show conflict of interest. One
just shows that the interests are in conflict, and shows someone
benefited. "shill" isn't a required element, or even a concluded
element.
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
