----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:38
PM
Subject: RE: [council] Conflicts of
Interest
I'm also interested in supporting the development of an
effective Interest
Statement, and a discussion of what creates a conflict
that requires a
recusement, versus a disclosure. Also, we should examine
how we implement
such a program.
Grant has shared with the BC the
way that InternetNZ addresses, and perhaps
there are other useful models
also about to quickly get a sense of.
Marilyn
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Cubberley, Maureen
(CHT)
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:04 AM
To: ross@tucows.com; Bruce Tonkin
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject:
RE: [council] Conflicts of Interest
Bruce and Ross,
Thanks Bruce
for bringing this proposal forward. I too think this is an
excellent
idea, and Ross, I agree with your further analysis. In
particular, I agree
that the GNSO council should move ahead with a
conflict of interest policy,
and an appropriate process to accompany it.
As you know, this is an
issue that I brought up at the meeting in
Vancouver, at which time I cited
the Board conflict of interest policy
and asked for clarification as to
whether or not it applied to the
Council.
Now that we have our
clarification, we should move ahead.
I like your" light weight"
approach and also the concept of a design
committee.
I support the
idea of adding this to the next agenda, so Bruce, if that
is acceptable and
if the Council as a whole agrees to proceed, I would
be pleased to
volunteer to work with fellow Councillors on the proposed
"design
committee" or with whatever development approach is
decided
upon.
Best regards,
Maureen
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent:
Friday, January 20, 2006 8:57 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject:
Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest
Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> I
see this being a voluntary initiative as there doesn't seem to
be
any
> explicit bylaw requirements.
Bruce -
I think
this is an excellent proposal. As you know, the registrar
constituency has
had similar practices embodied in its bylaws for a
number of
years.
However, simply because the bylaws is silent on a specific set
of
behaviors, doesn't mean that we can't officially adopt these behaviors
through other means.
I also believe that it is time for the Council
of the GNSO to adopt some
explicit conflict of interest management
processes - but I believe they
should be mandatory. At first, we should
proceed cautiously with these.
A light-weight approach would seem to be
most prudent. Over time, we
could improve and expand upon the approach in
ways that make it more
useful for our purposes.
My preference would
not be to create a "design committee" to come up
with a comprehensive
proposal at this time. As a first step, I think
your proposal makes
eminent sense, and I would like to discuss whether
or not the rest of the
council would be willing to undertake a vote to
make these requirements
mandatory. Is this something that we could add
to the agenda of our next
meeting?
Thanks in advance for your
consideration.
-ross