So, far, then it’s Sophia, Marilyn
and Maureen who have volunteered. But I have a request before there is any
creation of a small working group or even an initiative– discussion and
prioritization, consideration of what is feasible, and staff support needs.
In addition to our own discussion, I do
suggest that we discuss this with the General Counsel of ICANN. We need to
considering our work priorities – everything is important, and there are practicalities
to consider before launching a work initiative. We have a Operational Plan and
an emerging StratPlan for the Council. As we come up with great ideas for more
work initiatives, we should consider how they fit into the overall work plan
and priorities – and even perhaps maybe part of other work initiatives
It is easy to launch new initiatives, and
we need to consider resourcing of our staff support as well. I would think that
we would want to have a discussion with the GC and also perhaps discuss with
the ccNSO, how they see addressing this issue.
Just a comment: A discussion with the GC
is essential. Sarbanes Oxley is a rather burdensome “test”, and not
really developed quite for the “organization” that ICANN is. Further,
ICANN ‘s community, and its leaders and its participants will by nature
have many many interests. – and thus there will by nature be conflicts. Understanding
whether these are of the nature that require recusing oneself from a vote,
versus the need to fully disclose the relationships -- for instance,
councilors may have clients who have interests in the policy outcome –
that would by nature be all registrars and all registries – and many
others within the constituencies. That isn’t a bad thing. But should be a
transparent thing.
As we all know, it isn’t only
financial commitments that bring conflicts of interest, and that influence “interests”.
So, even though we have three volunteers,
I suspect that we should really have a discussion with the full council before
we hove off into a working group, and we need to understand the priorities of
work, what resources are needed, whether this is part of our changes of council
before we complete “review”, etc.
Still, I’m volunteering.
Grant, can you also post the InternetNZ
Councilor’s process to the email string – just for informational
purposes?
Marilyn
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of ICANNSoph
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006
9:04 PM
To: Maureen Cubberley
Cc: Marilyn Cade; Cubberley,
Maureen (CHT); ross@tucows.com; Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Conflicts
of Interest
Bruce,
I also want to share my experience in working in the development
and implementation of conflict-of-interest (COI) issues within my career
in Audit and recently, within the framework of Sarbane-Oxley legislation in
various orgs, which should be useful for us. I would like to volunteer
along with Maureen in contributing on the proposed task force for the
design of COI.
Basically, COI exist when professional
judgement concerning one interest tend to be unduly influenced by
another interest, be it within individuals or institutions. Despite
anyone's profit or gain, the appearance of COI (as we say in Audit) is as
destructive of confidence as actual gain or profit.
In our case, while not a regulatory mandate, it would be an
institutional statement of ethical standards based upon the act of total
objectivity with regards to ICCAN's interest.
Regards,
Sophia
On 21/01/06, Maureen
Cubberley <m.cubberley@sympatico.ca > wrote:
During my CIRA Chair days, we developed a
conflict of interest policy, with the assistance of one of the country's
leading legal firms. Ross, would CIRA be willing to share its policy with the Council?
Maureen
----- Original Message -----
From: Marilyn Cade
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
--
Sophia Bekele
Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598
Mob:925-818-0948
sophiabekele@gmail.com
SKYPE: skypesoph
www.cbsintl.com