On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 15:31, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via ripe-list
<[ripe-list@ripe.net](mailto:On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 15:31, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via
ripe-list <<a href=)> wrote:
> On 9 May 2023, at 12:30, Franziska Lichtblau <rhal...@old-forest.org> wrote:
>>
>> The document states very clearly, that NCC staff needs to disclose
>> their position. This is something we already do by, e.g, asking people
>> to disclose their affliation when commenting on the microphone. So we
>> already know how to deal with potential conflict of interests with a
>> lot of different stake holders.
>
> good point, likewise a meeting etiquette can handle other multiple hats one
> may wear.
I do not disagree with the tone or direction of the draft document, but I think
these particular comments (above) might be a little optimistic.
In my experience very few people without legal training actually understand
what a conflict of interest is, why it's important, or how to handle them when
they do or don't come up. It's common that people think conflicts exist when
they don't and vice versa; a disclosure of interests is not the same as recusal
from a discussion that leads to a decision, etc, etc.
If we think there is the potential for a conflict of interest to arise it would
be as well to consider producing some guidance that is suitable for digestion
by people who are not actually lawyers, e.g. a simple statement of principles,
some examples, and perhaps some suggestion about what to do if someone thinks a
conflict of interest does actually exist.
Again, I am not suggesting a change to the draft document under discussion,
just illustrating a related gap that I think might well exist and that might be
useful to address separately.
Joe
>
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
