Jeff
1. If I find someone expecting a decision from ICANN regarding
some gTLD issues, which has direct pecuniary implications for
him, and is simultaneously at key positions of the ICANN's policy
body related to gTLDs, I FIND THIS TO BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Further, I find this to be exactly the kind of issues that
structurally plague ICANN and its associated bodies, whereby my
interest in your case is larger.
2. I said I see a conflict of interest, and you should step down.
This assertion stands whether or not your disclosed any conflict
of interest. The two are different things.
3. As for the conflict of interest disclosure being prima
facie inappropriate, your description in point 5 below
reconfirms my belief/ assertion. You are saying that only when a
TLD actually gets assigned in a certain manner in relation to a
party that you are representing (and, I think, in which you also
have direct ownership stake -- which issue btw is not coming off
too clearly) does any conflict of interest arise, and NOT while
the the application/ processes/ discussions/ negotiations etc are
underway for such assignment. This is what I find prima facie
inappropriate. Conflict of interest arises right at the start of
the process -- involving a decision that could go either way --
and not only latter, at the time of assignment etc.... If I apply
for a tender, or am hobnobbing with parties applying for a tender,
for providing some services with a gov department, and i also hold
a position in the department, the conflict of interest begins
right way as one begins any involvement in the process, that could
potentially serve ones private interests, and not after the
awarding of a tender...
4. If saying that there is a conflict of interest, and the CoI
statements look prima facie unsatisfactory or inappropriate,
invites disciplinary action by the ombudsman, then that just adds
one layer to what is fundamentally wrong with ICANN and its
processes. So, please spare me that threat.
5. Meanwhile I have no interest in dot hip hop or you, and I did
already say that individuals (meaning you in this case) are less
to blame when the structural conditions are not conducive and
appropriate ones.
parminder
[STARTING A NEW THREAD TO AVOID DISTRACTION FROM ACCOUNTABILITY THREAD FOR THOSE THAT DO NOT CARE TO READ EITHER THIS THREAD OR THE OTHER]
Parminder,
Honestly, I am trying to understand your position, but having difficulty ascertaining the specifics other than your generalized statement that you believe I have a conflict of interest in serving as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC and/or the GNSO Liaison to the SubPro ODP while at the same time doing work for an entity seeking to become a contracted party . I would like to get these issues out of the way because it is not only distracting from the actual issues presented with respect to ICANN’s Accountability Mechanisms, but it is a clear attack on my credibility and character.
I expect those that attack my credibility, character and/or actions to come forward with evidence supporting their accusations. However, rather than provide any evidence to support your serious allegation that my conflict of interest statements are “prima facie inappropriate,” you ask the community to sift through those statements (which you admit you have not read), to find the evidence for you. This is borderline defamatory and a violation of ICANN’s Expected Rules of Behavior. I do not wish to encourage that activity moving forward, but to be fair, I do want to provide some facts to clear the air lest anyone actually believes that there is a conflict of interest with my serving as either the GNSO Liaison to the GAC or in the role of the GNSO Liaison to the SubPro ODP.
Here are the facts that I have provided:
- It is well known, and has been well known, that I started a business in July 2020 called JJN Solutions, LLC which represents a number of clients in a variety of different industries on legal and policy matters. Some of the clients I have include domain name registries, registrars and registrants. I also represent some Brand Owners in the protection of Intellectual Property. Further, in 2020 I was also appointed as a UDRP Panelist for The Forum and have presided over more than a dozen cases thus far. This has ALWAYS been in my Statements of Interest and can be found on my website https://www.jjnsolutions.com.
- At the time I applied for the position of GNSO Liaison to the GAC (mid 2020 I believe), I disclosed all of the above in the GNSO required application and SOI. The Standing Selection Committee got that information and was able to weigh that against my 25+ years of service and my reputation in the community for being fair, balanced and neutral. This has been demonstrated in my serving as in a chair or co-chair capacity on a number of Working Groups, Task Forces and other committees over the years including those where I directly worked for a domain name registry (Neustar) and then a domain name registrar (Com Laude)
- The various leadership positions I held in the community included serving 3.5 terms on the GNSO Council on behalf of the Registries (2 years of which I was a Vice Chair of the Council on behalf of the contracted parties). I served as a Chair of a Whois Task Force in the early 2000s, the chair of the PDP Planning Steering committee responsible for coming up with PDP 2.0, the sole registry representative on the Implementation Review Team responsible for recommending IP protections to the ICANN Board, and a chair of the Legal Assistance Group which worked with ICANN staff on the Base Registry New gTLD Agreement from 2010-2012. Most recently, I served as a Co-chair with Cheryl Langdon-Orr of the SubPro PDP. It was in this latter role that I became known by the GAC and was a vocal advocate for ensuring the GAC’s active participation in the SubPro PDP. Despite working for a registrar that also provided consulting services for Brand TLDs, I was able to serve as the PDP Chair in a neutral manner - meaning that despite what my then-employer’s position was on a particular issue, it was my job to not advocate for that position and to ensure that the will of the Working Group was implemented.
- It was also through this work that both Cheryl and I became ideal candidates to serve as the GNSO Liaison to the ODP. We both knew the work of the PDP Working Group backwards and forwards and we could help answer questions by the GNSO and/or by ICANN about the policies. During the selection process I again disclosed that my consulting business supported a number of clients, some of which included registries and registrars. However, I also committed to serve in this role in a neutral manner and not on behalf of any one of my client’s. I further disclosed that I was not being paid by any client for any work in connection with any future round of new gTLDs. That was true then and remains true today. I believe I have served in these roles in such a manner.
- What I did not disclose until recently was the name of one of the client’s that I am working for; namely Dot Hip Hop, LLC. This was due to the fact that Dot Hip Hop, LLC is not yet a contracted party. Dot Hip Hop, LLC is trying to get ICANN consent on an assignment for the .hiphop TLD from UniRegistry Corp. I knew that once ICANN approve DHH as a contracted party, it would be at that point that I needed to name the specific client because of the fact that have a small de minimus ownership stake in the company. [NOTE - the SOI only requires that you disclose whether you work for a particular contracted party and does not require you to disclose that you do work for an entity that is trying to be a contracted party]. However, given the concern that YOU raised on this list about not having made the update, I decided I would do so (even though not required).
Bottom line:(A) what is the conflict that you believe was not disclosed or that the Standing Selection Committee did not know at the time they selected me for the position?(B). What I activities in serving as these liaisons can you point to that were in contrast to serving in an independent neutral capacity?
If you cannot provide any back-up to these allegations and attacks, I ask nicely that you refrain from continued violations of ICANN’s Expected Rules of Behavior. I have not included the Ombudsman on this thread because I am optimistic that we can turn these discussions into productive ones on Accountability.
Sincerely.
Jeffrey J. NeumanFounder & CEOJJN Solutions, LLC+1.202.549.5079