Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] TR: ANNOUNCEMENT : Results from Round 2 voting for At-Large selected Board Member for seat #15 of ICANN Board
At 01/12/2010 07:51 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 30 November 2010 18:08, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Availability is not the only issue. If Sebastien participates to too great an extent on a particular issue, he may be seen to be in a conflict position and would have to recuse himself if that issue comes to the Board for discussion or decision.
Are you really saying that great interest in an issue, and a deep desire to understand the public attitude towards that issue (but without any financial or organisational ties) constitutes a conflict of interest?
PLEASE tell me where to find that in the bylaws. I can't think of a more fundamental A&T issue.
I've always considered CoI to mean financial interest or, if defined more broadly, attachment to an organization that has a financial or regulatory relationship with ICANN. Until ICANN decides that it needs to regulate the public, I can't think of any kind of public consultation -- even a very high-profile one -- that would be considered a CoI. If ICANN defines CoI that way, it is REALLY out of touch and deliberately unaccountable in a way that is unacceptable.
- Evan
I don't think that "interest and desire to understand" is any problem at all. Actually participating in the crafting of some proposal (or some similar involvement) *might* be. This is the same reason that Directors do not participate in the policy development process (and you may have noticed that the two Directors who signed up for the VI WG did so as "observers", and even then did not tend to participate. In any case, this was an alert that I was given during the Director selection process, and I passed it on in this forum as a *possible* consideration. Alan
Then Sébastien, attending virtual ALAC meetings and being on the mailing lists but with no ALAC vote, has nothing to worry about. Still, I'd like to know where in the bylaws or CoI guidelines it says that participation in low-level policy development negates one's ability to discuss that policy at the Board level. That's absolutely insane. One would think that having Directors engageed in policy besides the last-minute Board-meeting yes/no would be encouraged, not considered grounds for recusal. It's brave and interested to one to be interested to how the sausages are made. I'd still like to know where that intimidation process exists in ICANN documentation. Can anyone reading this who is -- or has been -- on the NomComm please help elaborate? - Evan On 1 December 2010 09:21, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 01/12/2010 07:51 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 30 November 2010 18:08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: Availability is not the only issue. If Sebastien participates to too great an extent on a particular issue, he may be seen to be in a conflict position and would have to recuse himself if that issue comes to the Board for discussion or decision.
Are you really saying that great interest in an issue, and a deep desire to understand the public attitude towards that issue (but without any financial or organisational ties) constitutes a conflict of interest?
PLEASE tell me where to find that in the bylaws. I can't think of a more fundamental A&T issue.
I've always considered CoI to mean financial interest or, if defined more broadly, attachment to an organization that has a financial or regulatory relationship with ICANN. Until ICANN decides that it needs to regulate the public, I can't think of any kind of public consultation -- even a very high-profile one -- that would be considered a CoI. If ICANN defines CoI that way, it is REALLY out of touch and deliberately unaccountable in a way that is unacceptable.
- Evan
I don't think that "interest and desire to understand" is any problem at all. Actually participating in the crafting of some proposal (or some similar involvement) *might* be. This is the same reason that Directors do not participate in the policy development process (and you may have noticed that the two Directors who signed up for the VI WG did so as "observers", and even then did not tend to participate.
In any case, this was an alert that I was given during the Director selection process, and I passed it on in this forum as a *possible* consideration.
Alan
Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> writes:
Still, I'd like to know where in the bylaws or CoI guidelines it says that participation in low-level policy development negates one's ability to discuss that policy at the Board level.
It's not clear cut, and it's not in the bylaws per se. But it gets into ethics.. If a board member pushes hard on an issue at a lower level (e.g., by actively participating in the development of something), the community has at times viewed that as board interferance or board heavyhandedness. Sometimes when a board member speaks on an issue, it is misinterpreted as a hard board position. Or something close. This can have the real negative impact of interfering with the work getting done in an approriate fashion. Likewise, most organizational structures that review work/policies/output look rather dimly on individuals having a formal vote on topics they have a clear interest in. It is hard to argue one is unbiased in something when said person has invested personal time/interest in an item they are then called upon to approve. Hence, board members need to be careful not to be seen as unduly interfering in ongoing work. Likewise, to remain fair and unbiased, they have to be careful not to find themselves in situations where they are approving their own work. That is not to say that this means directors can't/shouldn't ever participate, but it does mean they have to do so much more carefully. And to avoid any appearance of doing the wrong thing, staying out of policy development is simply the safest. Hope this helps. (And this is just my view, of course.) Thomas
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Thomas Narten