It's a very well thought-out document. Congratulations on the hard work. I have some additional input on Section 3.3 (Conflict of Interest) which is directly based on my experiences as a legislator subject to a Member's Register of Interests, and also, some years previously, as a Board Member of a large UK (multimillion) non-profit organisation that also But, this should not stop these rules being adopted. Essentially, the issue I see raised in 3.3 is that it does not distinguish between a disqualifying conflict of interest (a prejudicial conflict), and a non-disqualifying conflict. See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manage-a-conflict-of-interest-in-your-charity: "Conflicts of interest are common in [non-profits] – having a conflict of interest doesn’t mean you’ve done something wrong. But you need to act to prevent them from interfering with your ability to make a decision only in the best interests of the [organisation]." See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudicial_interest The difference is simple -- a disqualifying conflict of interest must be declared and automatically disqualifies someone from both speaking/participating and voting. A non-disqualifying conflict of interest must also be declared but does not automatically disqualify someone from speaking/participating or voting - for such conflicts is open to the Member to exercise his/her judgment in voting or (as often happens) abstaining. An example of the first kind is where a Member is exercising a quasi-judicial function as part of a body (for example. they are a member of a panel or committee that grants planning permission and they own the land being considered, or a body issues mobile phone licences, and they own shares in the applicant!). Simply that someone works for the same ccTLD manager as an applicant would appear to be in the second category, and whether it amounts to disqualification would depend on the facts (such as whether the applicant is their boss, or they don't even work with them). On one extreme, in our, small, registry (a mere four people), it would be almost impossible to for any conflict not to be of the disqualifying type, so from a personal perspective, the effect is the same if the Rules are adopted as written. But we are not all small organisations. In a large employer such as DEnic, Nominet or even bigger Google it would be somewhat wrong to /automatically/ disqualify someone from taking part in decision-making just because they are employed by the same, large, company. To use Peter's words, holding ourselves to the highest standards. We cannot lawfullor morally imply or presume base or inappropriate motives to professsionals without evidence. It appears that we must not make a presumption that another employee of the same company (who also serves in a personal capacity) is automatically disqualifed. These colleagues may work in entirely different departments. (Not to mention that a colleague may be the best person to provide objective and neutral input (negative as well as positive) -- I've just done exactly this in a reference for an application for professional recognition to a governing professional body. Yet, OBVIOUSLY, a colleague who works in the same company AND is in a supervisory or superior position to the applicant WOULD and SHOULD BE conflicted in some significant. So what this means is, where a POTENTIAL conflict has been identified (such as working in the same company) the situation has to be looked at more carefully. In some cases, the conflict can be resolved by simple declaration, and the person can speak and vote. In some cases, the conflict can be resolved by the person being able to speak, but not voting. In some cases, they should neither speak nor vote. And, finally, in some cases, the person concerned must "leave the room", and not communicate with the other Members on the subject. So, in conclusion, it strikes me that we need to develop a comprehensive CoI policy guide. Which we won't do overnight. But perhaps we can do it as part of our work in the coming year, and I am ready to help. And I wonder if Chris LaHatte might assist in this too? Thoughts? On 08/06/16 09:50, Katrina Sataki wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Here’s the Guideline: ccNSO Actions Respecting the Customer Standing Committee for your consideration! Please read it carefully, see if it addresses all of your concerns and prepare to discuss and hopefully adopt it during our call next week. Stephen, who is an active member of the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC), will walk you through the document.
Thanks a lot to all GRC members and the Secretariat for the hard work!
Kind regards,
]{atrina