Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] TR: ANNOUNCEMENT : Results from Round 2 voting for At-Large selected Board Member for seat #15 of ICANN Board
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. Then At-Large would lose both their liaison and voting Board member on just the issue that is of importance to them. Alan At 30/11/2010 05:08 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
As far as the issue of Liaison ... Just because you are no longer an official voting member of ALAC does not prevent you participating in it to the extent of your availability.
- Evan
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'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.
Those are the only interpretations used by any board I've ever been on. The idea that board members can only vote on topics they don't care about is truly strange. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
At 01/12/2010 11:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
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.
Those are the only interpretations used by any board I've ever been on.
The idea that board members can only vote on topics they don't care about is truly strange.
I will repeat, this is something I was cautioned about and I passed it on when Evan had said that availability was the only issue. It may be a completely spurious tale, so let's not get too worked up about it until Sebastien finds out if it is indeed an issue or not. Alan
On 1 December 2010 11:36, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I will repeat, this is something I was cautioned about and I passed it on when Evan had said that availability was the only issue. It may be a completely spurious tale, so let's not get too worked up about it until Sebastien finds out if it is indeed an issue or not.
OK. I'd normally let something like that pass, but in ICANN I'm finding that such passive intimidation tactics need to be confronted as soon as encountered, lest they become part of the culture. Let's not encumber our new Director with needless baggage before he's even installed. Whoever cautioned you is part of the problem, even if un-intentioned. - Evan
On 01/12/2010 17:36, Alan Greenberg wrote :
At 01/12/2010 11:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
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. Those are the only interpretations used by any board I've ever been on.
The idea that board members can only vote on topics they don't care about is truly strange. I will repeat, this is something I was cautioned about and I passed it on when Evan had said that availability was the only issue. It may be a completely spurious tale, so let's not get too worked up about it until Sebastien finds out if it is indeed an issue or not.
Actually, I have heard the same thing too! Or rather, I have argued with a Board member about this. The gist of the problem stems from a Board member's limited time to indulge in the nitty-gritty, thus preventing it from forming its opinions as a helicopter view. In that Board member's view, Board members should act like "members of a Board", that is, not mingle half as much with the communities, to "waste less time". I disagreed vehemently. IMHO this is a remnant of 20th century top-down hierarchical management and has no place in the bottom-up integrative management which ICANN has been *designed* to thrive on. And there, your honour, lies the root of the fracture in ICANN. :-) Warmest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Actually, I have heard the same thing too! Or rather, I have argued with a Board member about this. The gist of the problem stems from a Board member's limited time to indulge in the nitty-gritty, thus preventing it from forming its opinions as a helicopter view. In that Board member's view, Board members should act like "members of a Board", that is, not mingle half as much with the communities, to "waste less time".
Any chance you can tell us who this deeply misguided board member is? He's right, the board wastes a lot of time, but I attribute that almost entirely to their failure to make the staff do proper staff work. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
On 01/12/2010 18:25, John R. Levine wrote :
Actually, I have heard the same thing too! Or rather, I have argued with a Board member about this. The gist of the problem stems from a Board member's limited time to indulge in the nitty-gritty, thus preventing it from forming its opinions as a helicopter view. In that Board member's view, Board members should act like "members of a Board", that is, not mingle half as much with the communities, to "waste less time". Any chance you can tell us who this deeply misguided board member is?
You should be so lucky. :-)
He's right, the board wastes a lot of time, but I attribute that almost entirely to their failure to make the staff do proper staff work.
ICANN review processes have the ability of resolving problems - and as in everything slightly complex in life, there is no quick fix. Remember, ICANN's only a ten year old kid. But a gifted kid, it is, and it definitely has the potential to mature over time. Kindest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
H, As another input to this discussion, though tangental. I have appended a set of rules from the GNSO Procedures (i believe they are approved - it is sometimes hard to tell these days) that deal with the intangibles of Conflict of Interest. First in the GNSO we do not have Conflicts of Interest because it is assumed that everyone is mired in interest. So the items get call Statements of Interest and Declarations of Interest because the Interests that everyone is assumed to have, need to be made explicit and transparent. By and Large I think this is a good idea. -- 6. Please identify any other relevant arrangements, interests, or benefits as requested in the following three questions: i. Do you have any type of commercial or non-commercial interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes? Please answer “yes” or “no.” If the answer is “yes,” please describe the commercial or non-commercial interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes. ii. Are there any arrangements/agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your participation as a work team member? Please answer “yes” or “no.” If the answer is “yes,” please describe the arrangements/agreements and the name of the group, constituency, or person(s). iii. Do you receive any tangible or intangible benefit from participation in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes? For example, if you are an academic or NGO and use your position to advance your ability to participate, this relationship should be disclosed in the Statement of Interest just as should employment by a contracted party or a business relationship with a non-contracted party that has an interest in policy outcomes. Please answer “yes” or “no.” If the answer is “yes,” please describe the tangible or intangible benefits. --- While this situation is not identical to the one being discussed, I believe that it gives a flavor of the types of considerations that people are looking at. If something is an Interest that could be stated, then it could be an Interest that is in conflict. While California law may focus primarily of financial interests, I expect that the legal staff deals with Talmudic layers of the onion and seeks to avoid liability by making the rules on CoI as protective and extensive as possible. Additionally, I have spoken to various Board members who sit and observe working groups. Almost to a man, I think it was all men, they indicate that while they can watch, they do not feel they can speak, except perhaps to ask a question, and even that is rare - mostly the questions are asked off-list. This, I would note is am improvement from several years ago where they were even nervous about being on an WG email list. Now with new 'activist' Board members like Sébastien and Bertrand, both of whom have stretched the boundaries of ICANN practices at times, I am looking forward to new understandings and developments in Board participation with the Hoi Paloi. a
On 12/01/2010 12:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Additionally, I have spoken to various Board members who sit and observe working groups. Almost to a man, I think it was all men, they indicate that while they can watch, they do not feel they can speak, except perhaps to ask a question, and even that is rare
When I was on the board I used to get the evil eye from the board's chairman when I would ask questions. He tolerated it - what else could he do - but few others were willing to risk a disfavoring look from the chair. Given that meetings are tightly scheduled it takes a bit of chutzpah to stand one's ground and ask questions while the clock ticks away. A board member's duty is to make decisions (including the decision not to cast a vote) that are the result a logical process that is both informed of the fact and independent of what others may chose to do. Given the ambiguities of language, not to mention the complexity of issues, I do not see how any board member can fulfill that duty without asking questions - lots and lots of questions. Questions don't always end in a question mark - I found that giving an opinion of my own is often a better way to elicit a reasoned response than was asking a question: people often tend to be more articulate and comprehensive when they sense that they are defending something. There are other things a board member ought to know, but that ICANN is unlikely to tell 'em - for instance, a board member *may* chose to rely on corporate counsel but the board member is not required to do so, particularly as corporate counsel is counsel for the corporation - and owes his/her duty to the corporation - and not counsel for the board or the individual board members. Remember, a board member has the legal right - a right that I went to court to prove to ICANN - to inquire into any and all parts of the corporate activities. I also suggest that board members become familiar with the US law about "intermediate sanctions". --karl--
Hi, Maybe you should setup a seminar, perhaps an online seminar for Board newbies. ICANN Board Legal Seminar 101x - Everything you need to know, that the ICANN Legal counsel might not tell you. or maybe it could be an online course. cheers a. On 1 Dec 2010, at 16:10, Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 12/01/2010 12:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Additionally, I have spoken to various Board members who sit and observe working groups. Almost to a man, I think it was all men, they indicate that while they can watch, they do not feel they can speak, except perhaps to ask a question, and even that is rare
When I was on the board I used to get the evil eye from the board's chairman when I would ask questions. He tolerated it - what else could he do - but few others were willing to risk a disfavoring look from the chair. Given that meetings are tightly scheduled it takes a bit of chutzpah to stand one's ground and ask questions while the clock ticks away.
A board member's duty is to make decisions (including the decision not to cast a vote) that are the result a logical process that is both informed of the fact and independent of what others may chose to do.
Given the ambiguities of language, not to mention the complexity of issues, I do not see how any board member can fulfill that duty without asking questions - lots and lots of questions.
Questions don't always end in a question mark - I found that giving an opinion of my own is often a better way to elicit a reasoned response than was asking a question: people often tend to be more articulate and comprehensive when they sense that they are defending something.
There are other things a board member ought to know, but that ICANN is unlikely to tell 'em - for instance, a board member *may* chose to rely on corporate counsel but the board member is not required to do so, particularly as corporate counsel is counsel for the corporation - and owes his/her duty to the corporation - and not counsel for the board or the individual board members.
Remember, a board member has the legal right - a right that I went to court to prove to ICANN - to inquire into any and all parts of the corporate activities.
I also suggest that board members become familiar with the US law about "intermediate sanctions".
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 1 December 2010 15:31, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: 6. Please identify any other relevant arrangements, interests, or benefits
as requested in the following three questions:
i. Do you have any type of commercial or non-commercial interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes? Please answer “yes” or “no.” If the answer is “yes,” please describe the commercial or non-commercial interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes.
ii. Are there any arrangements/agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your participation as a work team member? Please answer “yes” or “no.” If the answer is “yes,” please describe the arrangements/agreements and the name of the group, constituency, or person(s).
iii. Do you receive any tangible or intangible benefit from participation in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes? For example, if you are an academic or NGO and use your position to advance your ability to participate, this relationship should be disclosed in the Statement of Interest just as should employment by a contracted party or a business relationship with a non-contracted party that has an interest in policy outcomes. Please answer “yes” or “no.” If the answer is “yes,” please describe the tangible or intangible benefits.
Thanks for this detail. Now, is it not reasonable to determine that the above details what ICANN considers to be "interest"? How does this evolve into Director fears of participation at lower levels of policymaking? I understand the time constrains. But if a Director has a background in an issue, and has something relevant to add to policy development -- whether fact or opinion -- how does that constitute "interest" by the above definitions? I suspect that some of what is happening is due to ambiguity in the word "interest". But I am concerned that this ambiguity is being manipulated by those who *like* keeping the Board in a vacuum, and I am eager to ensure that a whisper campaign of "don't get involved in the grassroots" does not enshrine such behavior as ICANN culture,
While this situation is not identical to the one being discussed, I believe that it gives a flavor of the types of considerations that people are looking at. If something is an Interest that could be stated, then it could be an Interest that is in conflict. While California law may focus primarily of financial interests, I expect that the legal staff deals with Talmudic layers of the onion and seeks to avoid liability by making the rules on CoI as protective and extensive as possible.
Well, there is already a comment in the ALAC response to the current Applicant Guidebook, which expresses concern that "risk management" is evolving as a primary goal of ICANN policy. Additionally, I have spoken to various Board members who sit and observe
working groups. Almost to a man, I think it was all men, they indicate that while they can watch, they do not feel they can speak,
Perhaps, but this "feeling" appears to have no basis in policy, and is instead stems from intimidation used to isolate the Board from its community.
Now with new 'activist' Board members like Sébastien and Bertrand, both of whom have stretched the boundaries of ICANN practices at times, I am looking forward to new understandings and developments in Board participation with the Hoi Paloi.
As am I. - Evan
Olivier, Did you not suggest to your august friend that his or her argument proves that ICANN meetings need no longer be cycled around the world as clearly meeting local communities is a "waste of time'. RFC draft suggestion to formalise this current state of affairs. major points - ICANN board members to be sealed inside a sound proofed glass bubble. - ICANN secretariat to be sealed in a separate sound proofed glass bubble but blindfolded. - ICANN constituencies to be gagged (as sound is useless) but provided with stones. Research project. Count fall of stones to determine if more stones are thrown intra or inter constituency and whether any have range to reach board or secretariat bubbles. Security implications glass can break wearing a blindfold doesn't mean there isn't anything "out there' remember David and Goliath? Gags can be repurposed as slings. Christian On 1 Dec 2010, at 17:21, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 01/12/2010 17:36, Alan Greenberg wrote :
At 01/12/2010 11:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
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. Those are the only interpretations used by any board I've ever been on.
The idea that board members can only vote on topics they don't care about is truly strange. I will repeat, this is something I was cautioned about and I passed it on when Evan had said that availability was the only issue. It may be a completely spurious tale, so let's not get too worked up about it until Sebastien finds out if it is indeed an issue or not.
Actually, I have heard the same thing too! Or rather, I have argued with a Board member about this. The gist of the problem stems from a Board member's limited time to indulge in the nitty-gritty, thus preventing it from forming its opinions as a helicopter view. In that Board member's view, Board members should act like "members of a Board", that is, not mingle half as much with the communities, to "waste less time". I disagreed vehemently. IMHO this is a remnant of 20th century top-down hierarchical management and has no place in the bottom-up integrative management which ICANN has been *designed* to thrive on. And there, your honour, lies the root of the fracture in ICANN. :-)
Warmest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Christian de Larrinaga -
Evan Leibovitch -
John R. Levine -
Karl Auerbach -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond