When will ALAC make its conflict of interest statement?
Hope everyone had good journeys back. I assume you all have seen this story in the New York Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/technology/private-fight-at-internet-namin... ALAC is frequently concerned with how it is perceived by others, especially when it comes to representing the user community. For the New York Times to have written a story like this, it must have deemed the story to be relevant to the general public. Yet ALAC, despite having ample opportunity and guidance during the week, failed to make a statement, even when it was already written for them, twice, by me. It distracted itself by claiming the story was no big news, or out of scope, or too confrontational for its multicultural nature, etc. etc. And it was distracted by the failure of LACRALO to conduct a meaningful general assembly. Rather than focus on policy issues, such as this one, it focused on elections of its own officers. Fortunately, I do believe Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised the conflict of interest issue in the public forum, but, as he eloquently pointed out to the list, he was something of a lone voice in doing so. Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all). Beau Brendler
Hi, I have a question: as the chair of NARALO, has NARALO made such a statement yet? Also I think it is a long stretch from the evidence that the ALAC did not take an issue that you, and the NYT, think is of primary important to the conclusion that ALAC is incapable of carrying out its mission. As you are one of the leaders of ALAC, I wonder whether taking the journalists approach is the right approach. avri On 19 Mar 2012, at 15:14, Beau Brendler wrote: …
Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all).
Beau Brendler
*Dear Beau,* * * *thank you for bringing our attention to focus on this point, at this time. Here is the position of one member of the ALAC:* * * *Context* * * *- At the Board/Alumni breakfast in San José, I asked whether the statement by the NTIA revealed a US strategy to deflect international criticism of the continued single-party control of ICANN, while at the same time providing Washington with some flexibility (better wait for the appointment of the next CEO before handing over an extension of the IANA function to ICANN, without even the semblance of a competition). The answer to my question was too simple: "it might be tempting to see some dark strategy behind all this, but there's no reason, really, to believe in this kind of conspiracy theory". My Alumni colleagues, and Board members as far as I could ascertain, seemed satisfied. I consider that my question was not thoroughly answered, and what's more, I feel concerned that the Board, by avoiding to push its analysis far enough, may be deluding itself on the scope of the crisis.* * * *- The institutional competition, and what leaders of ICANN see as a direct threat from the ITU, will not just dissolve. I am concerned that community leaders have not been associated with what is arguably one of the most topical policy issues at this stage in the life of ICANN, i.e. the overall governance arrangement regarding the Internet: who does what, with what range of support. Though in no way an insider, I suppose the natural tendency of the Board will be to have the next CEO concentrate on alleviating the internal tensions in the corporation, rather than letting her/him carry out a vast programme of public diplomacy. If this turns out to be true, the risk is that the institutional balance of governance might be put in danger, without ICANN weighing in sufficiently in favour of the multi-stakeholder model, as a means of upholding the global public interest. During one of the public sessions, I hinted at this, and went so far as to suggest that, if the next CEO is indeed to concentrate on the internal dimension of ICANN, the Board would be well inspired to take up some of the slack in the corporation's international duties (specifically, I think the Board's vice-chair should be given the task of coordinating the "outside" function, and be the chair of the Global Partnerships Committee).* * * *Action* * * *- Beau's point must be taken seriously. By failing to express concern at the way the Board has drifted into the quagmire of Conflict of Interest, the ALAC would be remiss in defending the global public interest.* * * *- The question is how to address this widespread concern. Some felt that Beau's initial formulation was too contentious to become an ALAC statement. Fair enough. But Beau's central point must be addressed, and quickly: do we express concern at the drift, and if so what corrective action do we recommend? I recommend that we consider this a priority.* * * *- To cut a long story short, we are faced with a choice:* * - to take up Beau's challenge and, on the basis of his draft, to prepare a statement with all due concern for wording, keeping future options open;* * - or to refuse this ALAC approach, sit by as Beau publishes a piece in his private capacity, and perhaps some of us support his initiative as individuals;* * - or let Beau publish, and just keep silent.* * * *There is an immediate challenge to the relevance of the ALAC: we should rise to the occasion.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* * * Le 20 mars 2012 04:14, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> a écrit :
Hope everyone had good journeys back.
I assume you all have seen this story in the New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/technology/private-fight-at-internet-namin...
ALAC is frequently concerned with how it is perceived by others, especially when it comes to representing the user community.
For the New York Times to have written a story like this, it must have deemed the story to be relevant to the general public.
Yet ALAC, despite having ample opportunity and guidance during the week, failed to make a statement, even when it was already written for them, twice, by me. It distracted itself by claiming the story was no big news, or out of scope, or too confrontational for its multicultural nature, etc. etc. And it was distracted by the failure of LACRALO to conduct a meaningful general assembly. Rather than focus on policy issues, such as this one, it focused on elections of its own officers. Fortunately, I do believe Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised the conflict of interest issue in the public forum, but, as he eloquently pointed out to the list, he was something of a lone voice in doing so.
Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all).
Beau Brendler
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
@Beau you raised the point ( also in a related email which I will also respond to) "... What I think ALAC should do now, personally, is push for conflict of interest rules to be adopted at all levels, starting with the ALAC itself...." As also mentioned in the Skype Chat => "... ..Conflict of Interest ( CoI) policy for ALAC will indeed be included in the ROP's and Metrics Review WG that put it's community wide call for membership oiut through last week... So it is a matter very much on OUR Agenda and we will of course assume it can be a benchmark for wider ICANN modelling or use... You will also note the considerable amount of work that the ICANN Board put into this matter leading up to and during the CR Meeting (and now out for Community Public Comment), so it is indeed on many tables at the moment *as it indeed should be* Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 20 March 2012 07:14, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> wrote:
Hope everyone had good journeys back.
I assume you all have seen this story in the New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/technology/private-fight-at-internet-namin...
ALAC is frequently concerned with how it is perceived by others, especially when it comes to representing the user community.
For the New York Times to have written a story like this, it must have deemed the story to be relevant to the general public.
Yet ALAC, despite having ample opportunity and guidance during the week, failed to make a statement, even when it was already written for them, twice, by me. It distracted itself by claiming the story was no big news, or out of scope, or too confrontational for its multicultural nature, etc. etc. And it was distracted by the failure of LACRALO to conduct a meaningful general assembly. Rather than focus on policy issues, such as this one, it focused on elections of its own officers. Fortunately, I do believe Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised the conflict of interest issue in the public forum, but, as he eloquently pointed out to the list, he was something of a lone voice in doing so.
Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all).
Beau Brendler
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
*Dear Cheryl & All,* * * *you just reminded us of now much ALAC has done to meet its obligations under the ALAC Review recommendations, as well as the "considerable amount of work" by the Board on the subject of Conflicts of Interest. Allow me to expand on this.* * * *In a way, the quantity of work produced does not guarantee the proper implementation of all the rules governing Conflict of Interest. Indeed, a former Chair of the Board, who as a lawyer was careful to keep within the legal bounds of Conflicts of Interest, did a singularly serious disservice to the corporation and to our community by failing to act in an ethical fashion. So, the issue is not an insufficient set of rules and regulations, but a serious lack of appropriate implementation.* * * *In this respect, the current state of affairs is accurately described by Beau and others who claim that the Board is either unconscious, or that it simply prefers to gloss over the problem by exhibiting the amount of its paperwork. Their message is that everything is under control, just have fun on the Internet and leave questions of governance to us. The Board knows better than the community.* * * *I would even argue that the wealth of detail into which supporting organizations and advisory committees have ventured is a convenient curtain behind which to hide. In comparison, the issue at hand is strikingly straightforward, and deserves to be thrown into the limelight: when more than half the voting members on the Board feel obligated to abstain from voting because of a declared conflict of interest, is this how the independent Board of a not-for-profit organization should be composed? In such a situation, should we be content with the Board Governance Committee, of which the Chair and several members are "conflicted", blandly declaring that it has performed a gigantic task and that nothing, really nothing is amiss?* * * *The wealth of your experience, Dear Cheryl, as well as the extent to which you have always implicated yourself in community work, commands respect. When considering your contribution, I feel the urge to bring the Board to a new standard of accountability, so that your selfless service shall not be diluted or lost.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques. * Le 20 mars 2012 16:23, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> a écrit :
@Beau you raised the point ( also in a related email which I will also respond to) "... What I think ALAC should do now, personally, is push for conflict of interest rules to be adopted at all levels, starting with the ALAC itself...." As also mentioned in the Skype Chat => "... ..Conflict of Interest ( CoI) policy for ALAC will indeed be included in the ROP's and Metrics Review WG that put it's community wide call for membership oiut through last week... So it is a matter very much on OUR Agenda and we will of course assume it can be a benchmark for wider ICANN modelling or use... You will also note the considerable amount of work that the ICANN Board put into this matter leading up to and during the CR Meeting (and now out for Community Public Comment), so it is indeed on many tables at the moment *as it indeed should be* Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
On 20 March 2012 07:14, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> wrote:
Hope everyone had good journeys back.
I assume you all have seen this story in the New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/technology/private-fight-at-internet-namin...
ALAC is frequently concerned with how it is perceived by others, especially when it comes to representing the user community.
For the New York Times to have written a story like this, it must have deemed the story to be relevant to the general public.
Yet ALAC, despite having ample opportunity and guidance during the week, failed to make a statement, even when it was already written for them, twice, by me. It distracted itself by claiming the story was no big news, or out of scope, or too confrontational for its multicultural nature,
etc.
etc. And it was distracted by the failure of LACRALO to conduct a meaningful general assembly. Rather than focus on policy issues, such as this one, it focused on elections of its own officers. Fortunately, I do believe Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised the conflict of interest issue in the public forum, but, as he eloquently pointed out to the list, he was something of a lone voice in doing so.
Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all).
Beau Brendler
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Here under is my version of Beau's draft letter to the Board for your advice and consent. As promised, this is intended to be sent to the Board. -------------------------------------- The At-Large Advisory Committee is concerned by the Board's response to the recent spate of conflict of interest matters raised from both inside and outside the ICANN community. We are troubled by the possible impacts on ICANN's credibility as a steward of the multistakeholder model of Internet governance and the sustainability of that model in the global environment, especially in light of clear and present threats. In our view, ICANN must seize this moment to right itself by adopting and applying the language of the Affirmation of Commitments with respect to conflicts of interest. Indeed, in its explanatory text for rejecting all of the proposals - including one from ICANN - for managing IANA affairs, the United States Department of Commerce avers a “need for structural separation of policy-making from implementation, a robust companywide conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened respect for local country laws and a series of consultation and reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability to the international community.” Their message is unmistakable and it would be wise to heed the warning. The credible evidence so far suggests that top to bottom, ICANN is riddled with conflicts of interest as measured by contemporary best practice corporate governance frameworks. Indeed, with the identification of one class of conflicts by CEO Rod Beckstrom as a “significant threat” to ICANN, we are at a watershed moment. Mr Beckstrom's proposal for remedy includes that of ICANN board candidates be “financially independent of the domain name industry.” He also posited reform of the board selection process ”not just desirable". He calls for a "fully independent and non-conflicted NomCom" in place before the next nomination cycle begins. The evidence and arguments are compelling enough for the ALAC to agree with them. While we would not wish to eliminate the domain name industry from participation in what must be a viable multistakeholder model of governance, that influence must be balanced and not overwhelming. For example, we do not believe it is a good thing for declared domain name industry representatives to hold the chairmanship of the Nominating Committee. The counteracting argument that a non-voting Chair is without power is not only simplistic but mocks what we know of organizational behaviour. And as we now understand from the NomCom's senior leadership, no conflict of interest framework exists within the committee governing external financial conflicts of interest – only fiduciary relationships with ICANN itself are addressed.**** We believe ICANN’s public credibility is being strained to breaking point in this regard. And another major embarrassment is hardly affordable. We urge the ICANN board to acknowledge the current gaps in conflict-of-interest guidelines within the community and to immediate steps to engage an impartial third party to review and propose a conflict of interest framework to remedy and relieve the community of the serious inherent implications. ---------- end -of- statement -------------- - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:44 AM, JJS <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Dear Cheryl & All,* * * *you just reminded us of now much ALAC has done to meet its obligations under the ALAC Review recommendations, as well as the "considerable amount of work" by the Board on the subject of Conflicts of Interest. Allow me to expand on this.* * * *In a way, the quantity of work produced does not guarantee the proper implementation of all the rules governing Conflict of Interest. Indeed, a former Chair of the Board, who as a lawyer was careful to keep within the legal bounds of Conflicts of Interest, did a singularly serious disservice to the corporation and to our community by failing to act in an ethical fashion. So, the issue is not an insufficient set of rules and regulations, but a serious lack of appropriate implementation.* * * *In this respect, the current state of affairs is accurately described by Beau and others who claim that the Board is either unconscious, or that it simply prefers to gloss over the problem by exhibiting the amount of its paperwork. Their message is that everything is under control, just have fun on the Internet and leave questions of governance to us. The Board knows better than the community.* * * *I would even argue that the wealth of detail into which supporting organizations and advisory committees have ventured is a convenient curtain behind which to hide. In comparison, the issue at hand is strikingly straightforward, and deserves to be thrown into the limelight: when more than half the voting members on the Board feel obligated to abstain from voting because of a declared conflict of interest, is this how the independent Board of a not-for-profit organization should be composed? In such a situation, should we be content with the Board Governance Committee, of which the Chair and several members are "conflicted", blandly declaring that it has performed a gigantic task and that nothing, really nothing is amiss?* * * *The wealth of your experience, Dear Cheryl, as well as the extent to which you have always implicated yourself in community work, commands respect. When considering your contribution, I feel the urge to bring the Board to a new standard of accountability, so that your selfless service shall not be diluted or lost.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques. * Le 20 mars 2012 16:23, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> a écrit :
@Beau you raised the point ( also in a related email which I will also respond to) "... What I think ALAC should do now, personally, is push for conflict of interest rules to be adopted at all levels, starting with the ALAC itself...." As also mentioned in the Skype Chat => "... ..Conflict of Interest ( CoI) policy for ALAC will indeed be included in the ROP's and Metrics Review WG that put it's community wide call for membership oiut through last week... So it is a matter very much on OUR Agenda and we will of course assume it can be a benchmark for wider ICANN modelling or use... You will also note the considerable amount of work that the ICANN Board put into this matter leading up to and during the CR Meeting (and now out for Community Public Comment), so it is indeed on many tables at the moment *as it indeed should be* Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
On 20 March 2012 07:14, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> wrote:
Hope everyone had good journeys back.
I assume you all have seen this story in the New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/technology/private-fight-at-internet-namin...
ALAC is frequently concerned with how it is perceived by others, especially when it comes to representing the user community.
For the New York Times to have written a story like this, it must have deemed the story to be relevant to the general public.
Yet ALAC, despite having ample opportunity and guidance during the
week,
failed to make a statement, even when it was already written for them, twice, by me. It distracted itself by claiming the story was no big news, or out of scope, or too confrontational for its multicultural nature, etc. etc. And it was distracted by the failure of LACRALO to conduct a meaningful general assembly. Rather than focus on policy issues, such as this one, it focused on elections of its own officers. Fortunately, I do believe Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised the conflict of interest issue in the public forum, but, as he eloquently pointed out to the list, he was something of a lone voice in doing so.
Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all).
Beau Brendler
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Good day to you all, I have taken the version of the CoI statement done by Carlton (Thank you Carlton) and adjusted it as pasted beneath. ***What would be useful to support this statement would be a list of CoI issues/instances identified over the last year at the very least to buttress our statement - this would be where I would include references to the CEOs speech) ***** The At-Large Advisory Committee is concerned at the minimal response by the Board to the growing instances of glaring conflicts of Interest issues within ICANN and its various ocnstitutencies. This has been raised both internally by ICANn members as well as by externals outside of the ICANN community. The impact/toll this is taking on ICANN’s credibility as a steward of the multistakeholder nature of the Internet governance ecosystem and its sustainability in the in the global environment is very troubling in light of the continuing threats. We as the ALAC asserts that ICANN needs to promptly address this growing perception by adopting and applying the language of the Affirmation of Commitments with respect to Conflict of Interest. We refer to the explanatory text for the rejection of all proposals to manage the IANA contract by the United States Department of Commerce which stated ‘a need for {the} structural separation of policy-making from implementation, a robust companywide conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened respect for local country laws and a series of consultation and reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability to the international community.” The intent and message is clear and unmistakable and we as the ICANN community woldbe wise to heed such direct criticism of our systems. Till date it has become even more obvious with a series of credible instances and situations that ICANN is very much riddled with conflicts of Interest when compared with or measured by contemporary best practice in corporate governance frameworks and standards. {Indeed, with the identification of oneclass of conflicts by CEO Rod Beckstrom as a “significant threat” to ICANN, we are at a watershed moment. Mr Beckstrom's proposal for remedy includes that of ICANN board candidates be “financially independent of the domain name industry.” He also posited reform of the board selection process ”not just desirable". He calls for a "fully independent and non-conflicted NomCom" in place before the next nomination cycle begins.} *[not sure about including this line or reference to Rod’s speech {lending it more significance than necessary} but rather specific instances could be used here]* * * The evidence and arguments are compelling enough for the ALAC to agree with these but not at the expense of eliminating the domain name industry from participation in a viable multistakeholder model of governance. Rather its influence must be unbiased, balanced and far from totalitarian in nature. We do not for instance, perceive it to be advantageous that a domain name industry representative should hold the chairmanship of the Nominating Committee at this point – juxtaposed with the many other powerful influencer roles held by industry representatives across ICANN constituencies. The counteracting argument that a non-voting Chair is without power is simplistic and undermines what is known of organizational behavoiour and the power of influencers – voting powers or not. It is noted that as clarified to us by NomCom senior leadership, no conflict of interest framework exists within the committee to govern external financial conflicts of interest at present - as only fiduciary relationships with and within ICANN itself is addressed. We believe ICANN’s already tenous public credibility is being strained to a breaking point in this regard – and we can hardly afford another major and public embarrassment. We, as the ALAC, representing end-users in this complex ecosystem, urge the ICANN board to acknowledge and address the current gaps in conflict-of-interest guidelines within the community by taking immediate actionable steps to engage an impartial third party to review, propose and support the implementation of a conflict of interest strategy across all its constituencies. ***** TT On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>wrote:
Here under is my version of Beau's draft letter to the Board for your advice and consent. As promised, this is intended to be sent to the Board. --------------------------------------
The At-Large Advisory Committee is concerned by the Board's response to the recent spate of conflict of interest matters raised from both inside and outside the ICANN community. We are troubled by the possible impacts on ICANN's credibility as a steward of the multistakeholder model of Internet governance and the sustainability of that model in the global environment, especially in light of clear and present threats.
In our view, ICANN must seize this moment to right itself by adopting and applying the language of the Affirmation of Commitments with respect to conflicts of interest. Indeed, in its explanatory text for rejecting all of the proposals - including one from ICANN - for managing IANA affairs, the United States Department of Commerce avers a “need for structural separation of policy-making from implementation, a robust companywide conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened respect for local country laws and a series of consultation and reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability to the international community.” Their message is unmistakable and it would be wise to heed the warning.
The credible evidence so far suggests that top to bottom, ICANN is riddled with conflicts of interest as measured by contemporary best practice corporate governance frameworks. Indeed, with the identification of one class of conflicts by CEO Rod Beckstrom as a “significant threat” to ICANN, we are at a watershed moment.
Mr Beckstrom's proposal for remedy includes that of ICANN board candidates be “financially independent of the domain name industry.” He also posited reform of the board selection process ”not just desirable". He calls for a "fully independent and non-conflicted NomCom" in place before the next nomination cycle begins.
The evidence and arguments are compelling enough for the ALAC to agree with them. While we would not wish to eliminate the domain name industry from participation in what must be a viable multistakeholder model of governance, that influence must be balanced and not overwhelming. For example, we do not believe it is a good thing for declared domain name industry representatives to hold the chairmanship of the Nominating Committee. The counteracting argument that a non-voting Chair is without power is not only simplistic but mocks what we know of organizational behaviour. And as we now understand from the NomCom's senior leadership, no conflict of interest framework exists within the committee governing external financial conflicts of interest – only fiduciary relationships with ICANN itself are addressed.****
We believe ICANN’s public credibility is being strained to breaking point in this regard. And another major embarrassment is hardly affordable.
We urge the ICANN board to acknowledge the current gaps in conflict-of-interest guidelines within the community and to immediate steps to engage an impartial third party to review and propose a conflict of interest framework to remedy and relieve the community of the serious inherent implications.
---------- end -of- statement --------------
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:44 AM, JJS <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Dear Cheryl & All,* * * *you just reminded us of now much ALAC has done to meet its obligations under the ALAC Review recommendations, as well as the "considerable amount of work" by the Board on the subject of Conflicts of Interest. Allow me to expand on this.* * * *In a way, the quantity of work produced does not guarantee the proper implementation of all the rules governing Conflict of Interest. Indeed, a former Chair of the Board, who as a lawyer was careful to keep within the legal bounds of Conflicts of Interest, did a singularly serious disservice to the corporation and to our community by failing to act in an ethical fashion. So, the issue is not an insufficient set of rules and regulations, but a serious lack of appropriate implementation.* * * *In this respect, the current state of affairs is accurately described by Beau and others who claim that the Board is either unconscious, or that it simply prefers to gloss over the problem by exhibiting the amount of its paperwork. Their message is that everything is under control, just have fun on the Internet and leave questions of governance to us. The Board knows better than the community.* * * *I would even argue that the wealth of detail into which supporting organizations and advisory committees have ventured is a convenient curtain behind which to hide. In comparison, the issue at hand is strikingly straightforward, and deserves to be thrown into the limelight: when more than half the voting members on the Board feel obligated to abstain from voting because of a declared conflict of interest, is this how the independent Board of a not-for-profit organization should be composed? In such a situation, should we be content with the Board Governance Committee, of which the Chair and several members are "conflicted", blandly declaring that it has performed a gigantic task and that nothing, really nothing is amiss?* * * *The wealth of your experience, Dear Cheryl, as well as the extent to which you have always implicated yourself in community work, commands respect. When considering your contribution, I feel the urge to bring the Board to a new standard of accountability, so that your selfless service shall not be diluted or lost.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques. * Le 20 mars 2012 16:23, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> a écrit :
@Beau you raised the point ( also in a related email which I will also respond to) "... What I think ALAC should do now, personally, is push for conflict of interest rules to be adopted at all levels, starting with the ALAC itself...." As also mentioned in the Skype Chat => "... ..Conflict of Interest ( CoI) policy for ALAC will indeed be included in the ROP's and Metrics Review WG that put it's community wide call for membership oiut through last week... So it is a matter very much on OUR Agenda and we will of course assume it can be a benchmark for wider ICANN modelling or use... You will also note the considerable amount of work that the ICANN Board put into this matter leading up to and during the CR Meeting (and now out for Community Public Comment), so it is indeed on many tables at the moment *as it indeed should be* Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
On 20 March 2012 07:14, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> wrote:
Hope everyone had good journeys back.
I assume you all have seen this story in the New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/technology/private-fight-at-internet-namin...
ALAC is frequently concerned with how it is perceived by others, especially when it comes to representing the user community.
For the New York Times to have written a story like this, it must
have
deemed the story to be relevant to the general public.
Yet ALAC, despite having ample opportunity and guidance during the week, failed to make a statement, even when it was already written for them, twice, by me. It distracted itself by claiming the story was no big news, or out of scope, or too confrontational for its multicultural nature, etc. etc. And it was distracted by the failure of LACRALO to conduct a meaningful general assembly. Rather than focus on policy issues, such as this one, it focused on elections of its own officers. Fortunately, I do believe Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised the conflict of interest issue in the public forum, but, as he eloquently pointed out to the list, he was something of a lone voice in doing so.
Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all).
Beau Brendler
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Mrs. Titi Akinsanmi Consultant/Researcher Mobile: +27 83 300 7105 titi.akinsanmi@gmail.com Impacting My Generation
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Beau Brendler -
Carlton Samuels -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
JJS -
Titi Akinsanmi