[ripe-list] New Draft Document: RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community (Please review)

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 15:31, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via ripe-list <[ripe-list at 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 <rhalina at 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

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/attachments/20230510/800b9f6e/attachment.html>