Thanks Becky, this is interesting and relevant. It should be noted too that there is significant consternation from some in the USA about high level political folks being able to by-pass the "cooling off" periods, and quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_%28politics%29: "One big loophole is that these restrictions do not apply to many high-level policy makers..., who can join corporations or their boards without waiting." Examples of individuals who have moved between roles in this way in sensitive areas include Dick Cheney (military contracting), Linda Fisher (pesticide and biotech), Philip Perry (homeland security), Pat Toomey, Dan Coats, and former FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker (media lobbying)." Also, in ICANN's past, there was little or no concern that Andrew Maclaughlin moved from a senior staff position in ICANN to Google (an ICANN Registrar) or Vint Cerf who moved from Chair of ICANN onto the Verisign advisory board within a short time of his departure - noting one of ICANNs chief roles is in fact the regulation / oversight of Verisign. Moving to Google or Verisign with their significant voices and revenues in the Internet world might be somewhat more "bad" than moving to M+M as a zero revenue start up. Likewise a move from, say, JJ on ICANN staff to M+M, who potentially penned the new gTLD contracts for ICANN, might be seen as a real conflict... It seems this issue is being pushed hard from outside ICANN, possibly from the anti-new-gTLD lobby, and causing distraction and disharmony in the ICANN arena may be the goal, or at the least, to put some pressure on the US Government to manage ICANN more closely - something I think we all agree is not desirable. As good governors here, lets consider the facts, and the legal issues only. Peter D-T and others have to wrestle with their own consciences regarding any moral or ethical decisions. When you reflect on PDTs decision versus those made by Cheney, Fisher, Perry, and "our very own" Meredith Attwell Baker and others, perhaps the seriousness of this instance becomes apparent? 1. ICANN could ask PDT and M+M if there were any negotiations regarding the appointment prior to PDT's departure from the ICANN board. If the answer is no, then there is no follow up process for ICANN. If the answer is yes, then ICANN could have some recourse against PDT. 2. Does the Board have appropriate conflict of interest and restraint of trade policies applicable to the board and staff of ICANN? If yes, no action, if no, recommend appropriate policies. Cheers Keith On 24/08/2011 1:16 a.m., Burr, Becky wrote:
Regarding the conflicts question, senior US government employees are subject to several post-employment conflict of interest policies. As you will see from the list, nothing prohibits an individual from working on an issue that they worked on as a government employee. Rather, they are precluded from representing a third party before the government - i.e., exploiting their relationship with former colleagues.
1.Permanent restriction on any former employee's representations to United States concerning particular matter in which the employee participated personally and substantially.
2.Two-year restriction on any former employee's representations to United States concerning particular matter for which the employee had official responsibility.
3.One-year restriction on any former employee's representations, aid, or advice concerning ongoing trade or treaty negotiation.
4.One-year restriction on any former senior employee's representations to former agency concerning any matter, regardless of prior involvement
5.Two-year restriction on any former very senior employee's representations to former agency or certain officials concerning any matter, regardless of prior involvement.
6.One-year restriction on any former senior or very senior employee's representations on behalf of, or aid or advice to, foreign entity.
7.One-year restriction on any former private sector assignee under the Information Technology Exchange Program representing, aiding, counseling or assisting in representing in connection with any contract with former agency
http://www.usoge.gov/laws_regs/regulations/5cfr2641.aspx
There are, of course, prohibitions about conflicts of interest while serving as a government employee. Those won't quite work in an organization like ICANN, but for information, here is the link.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e62a2086dab40719f9b... <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e62a2086dab40719f9b...>
*J. Beckwith Burr | **WilmerHale*