[PDB Gov] draft Conflict of Interest Policy amendment to Admin Committee Charter

[Chris Caputo]

Members,

Due to observing occasional complaints about alleged impropriety in 
regards to the Admin Committee approval process for new objects, I drafted 
the below amendment to the Admin Committee Charter.

Prior to the start of the April election process, during which I will be 
focused on the administration of the Board election and Annual Meeting as 
your Secretary/Treasurer, I share the below in case any other members 
would like to improve this draft or otherwise see it discussed or enacted 
in some form at the Annual Member Meeting on April 13th or in case members 
decide to share their opinion with perspective or existing board members.

Governance details along with contact info for Board members is up at:

   https://docs.peeringdb.com/gov/

Chris

---

Existing AC Charter:

   https://docs.peeringdb.com/committee/admin/

Draft Conflict of Interest Policy for AC Charter:

 - Due to the sensitive and potentially conflicted nature of support 
   tickets handled by the Admin Committee, along with the desire to avoid 
   the perception of any conflict of interest, this Charter includes the 
   following provisions:

   - The Admin Committee requires annual conflict of interest disclosures 
     be made to other Admin Committee members and the PeeringDB Board and 
     Officers. At a minimum, these disclosures shall reveal sources of 
     allegiance and/or income in the sphere of PeeringDB's activities, and 
     shall be updated when there are changes.

   - An Admin Committee member may not touch or otherwise handle a 
     potentially conflicting support ticket, regardless of whether the 
     committee member believes there is no conflict of interest. For 
     example, a committee member that works for, volunteers for, or 
     otherwise has an interest in an IXP, except as a member or customer, 
     may not deliberate/advise on any IXP related AC support ticket or 
     decision relating to any IXP. This example continues for a 
     hypothetical network employee adjudicating over another network, or a 
     facility owner adjudicating over another facility, or a carrier 
     advisor handling the support ticket of another carrier, etc. The 
     purpose of these examples is not the be exhaustive, but rather to 
     indicate the intention of this Conflict of Interest Policy.

   - If no Admin Committee member is able to handle a support ticket or 
     decision needing resolution, the matter shall be delegated to the 
     PeeringDB Board.

---