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
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
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 To: 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)' ; ross@tucows.com ; 'Bruce Tonkin' Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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
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 <marilynscade@hotmail.com> *To:* 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)' <MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> ; ross@tucows.com; 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> *Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org *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
First, let me remind everyone of a fact that I pointed out at our council meeting in Vancouver - that the membership of this council, by and large, consists of representatives of special interest groups. "EVERYBODY AT THIS TABLE IS A STAKEHOLDER. WE ALL HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE." http://www.icann.org/meetings/vancouver/captioning-gnso-council-02dec05.htm I don't believe this has substantially changed over the last few weeks. ;-) However, you should note that I have continuously used the term "statement of interest" and not "conflict of interest". The former is simple an enumeration of those interests which may affect my judgment as it relates to particular issues. The second is a situation in which a trusted individual's private interests unduly benefit from their public actions - essentially a betrayal of the public trust. It only takes a very quick evaluation of our respective interests to come to the conclusion that we could each quite often be in a position of conflict of interest. This is one of the primary reasons why this organization does not make policy, it makes recommendations. Our work is checked by a superior body - one that is intended to be free of these same conflicts because we cannot be. This is why it is imperative that we make our interests in specific issues known and continue to do so over time as these interests change. For instance, two years ago, Tucows had no interests in the secondary names market - today, our interest is substantial. This dramatically changes the position my company takes on related issues. It changes our advocacy at a constituency level and it influences our work within the GNSO. In this forum, that of the GNSO Council, I represent the interests of accredited registrars. Registrars have a vital interest in each and every issue before the GNSO. Under a standard conflict of interest management policy, I would likely need to recuse myself on most issues - as would most of you. As you can see, this quickly becomes an untenable proposition. Second, I believe my proposal has been misinterpreted. I would like to see Bruce's recommendation for us each to file statements of interests as mandatory for all councilors. I believe we owe it to each other, the GNSO and the general community to disclose what our special interests are. However, because of these special interests, I do not believe that adopting a process of recusal, et al will be useful. To this end, I proposed that we adopt Bruce's proposal as mandatory and build upon it over time as our experience with these types of guidelines grows. Implementing true standards of objectivity go against the structure of the GNSO. While I believe it is incumbent on Councilors to conduct ourselves in a manner that is consistent with ICANN's goals, mission and mandate - i.e. with regards to the "big picture" - it is impossible for us to do so without regard for the interests of our respective constituency members. Of course, these comments pertain only to those that represent constituencies, but I don't think that we can expect our appointed members and liaisons to conduct themselves in any way different from those that are elected from within the GNSO. We have much work before us, so lets take a small step forward, adopt Bruce's proposal as mandatory and keep an eye on its effectiveness while we attend to the more important work items before us. -ross ICANNSoph wrote:
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 <marilynscade@hotmail.com> *To:* 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)' <MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> ; ross@tucows.com; 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> *Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org *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
Thanks, Ross, I better understand your suggestion and it seems to be feasible to implement this approach in the short run, and take longer steps over time. I should have read this before posting my last email which was sort of urging similar caution for a big initiative. However, I fully agree with a posting of statements of interests. Still, I would like us to have a work plan toward how and when we might develop a process -- fitting it into the StratPlan work program, perhaps. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:22 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest First, let me remind everyone of a fact that I pointed out at our council meeting in Vancouver - that the membership of this council, by and large, consists of representatives of special interest groups. "EVERYBODY AT THIS TABLE IS A STAKEHOLDER. WE ALL HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE." http://www.icann.org/meetings/vancouver/captioning-gnso-council-02dec05.htm I don't believe this has substantially changed over the last few weeks. ;-) However, you should note that I have continuously used the term "statement of interest" and not "conflict of interest". The former is simple an enumeration of those interests which may affect my judgment as it relates to particular issues. The second is a situation in which a trusted individual's private interests unduly benefit from their public actions - essentially a betrayal of the public trust. It only takes a very quick evaluation of our respective interests to come to the conclusion that we could each quite often be in a position of conflict of interest. This is one of the primary reasons why this organization does not make policy, it makes recommendations. Our work is checked by a superior body - one that is intended to be free of these same conflicts because we cannot be. This is why it is imperative that we make our interests in specific issues known and continue to do so over time as these interests change. For instance, two years ago, Tucows had no interests in the secondary names market - today, our interest is substantial. This dramatically changes the position my company takes on related issues. It changes our advocacy at a constituency level and it influences our work within the GNSO. In this forum, that of the GNSO Council, I represent the interests of accredited registrars. Registrars have a vital interest in each and every issue before the GNSO. Under a standard conflict of interest management policy, I would likely need to recuse myself on most issues - as would most of you. As you can see, this quickly becomes an untenable proposition. Second, I believe my proposal has been misinterpreted. I would like to see Bruce's recommendation for us each to file statements of interests as mandatory for all councilors. I believe we owe it to each other, the GNSO and the general community to disclose what our special interests are. However, because of these special interests, I do not believe that adopting a process of recusal, et al will be useful. To this end, I proposed that we adopt Bruce's proposal as mandatory and build upon it over time as our experience with these types of guidelines grows. Implementing true standards of objectivity go against the structure of the GNSO. While I believe it is incumbent on Councilors to conduct ourselves in a manner that is consistent with ICANN's goals, mission and mandate - i.e. with regards to the "big picture" - it is impossible for us to do so without regard for the interests of our respective constituency members. Of course, these comments pertain only to those that represent constituencies, but I don't think that we can expect our appointed members and liaisons to conduct themselves in any way different from those that are elected from within the GNSO. We have much work before us, so lets take a small step forward, adopt Bruce's proposal as mandatory and keep an eye on its effectiveness while we attend to the more important work items before us. -ross ICANNSoph wrote:
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 <marilynscade@hotmail.com> *To:* 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)' <MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> ; ross@tucows.com; 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> *Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org *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
Marilyn Cade wrote:
Still, I would like us to have a work plan toward how and when we might develop a process -- fitting it into the StratPlan work program, perhaps.
It might be useful to add this to the agenda for the Council planning committee and request a "roadmap" of sorts from them outlining a project plan with some milestones detailing how Council might best move this forward incrementally through 06/07 or some similar time frame... -ross
I think Ross' statement is mostly right. In the GNSO, we should be focused on transparency, not conflicts. "Self-regulation" places interested organizations directly in the path of GNSO policy recommendations. This was a matter of design. Given the current structure of the GNSO Council, I fully expect the constituency-elected representatives of the GNSO to vote according to the self-interests of the organizations that elected them (and liaisons such as myself will provide input based on the same set of self-interests). Only the Nominating Committee-appointed members are here to represent the wider public interest. I also expect that each constituency will have a mechanism for determining whether its elected representatives have some private interest that might be in conflict with the constituency's interests. Even for the Nominating Committee elected representatives, I believe there are vetting procedures in place to make sure that no private interests would sway their votes. I am happy for us to have a formal policy, but I suspect that much of the vetting of conflicts is already done at the constituency and NomComm-level. Bret Ross Rader wrote:
However, you should note that I have continuously used the term "statement of interest" and not "conflict of interest". The former is simple an enumeration of those interests which may affect my judgment as it relates to particular issues. The second is a situation in which a trusted individual's private interests unduly benefit from their public actions - essentially a betrayal of the public trust.
I agree with your thoughts Bret and definitly with Ross. Transparency is the way we should go. However, I believe that 'Transparency' is an over sighting function over something, therefore I suggest that we ask these questions as we build our road map over transparency: 'what' are we over sighting i.e conflict of interest, issues of disclosure ? 'who" we are also protecting, i.e public interest, constituency etc… 'why" are we doing it, i.e to protect interest, to preserve confidence. .etc. If I am to understand what we are doing, within GNSO council, *is our concern about our activities with the constituencies and the apparent conflicts that might surface with our public service responsibilities? * If so, it still is a conflict of interest issue, despite that we say it is not. The challenge we have then, is the difficulties that arise from the generally laudable effort to apply one set of rules (COI) across, yet recognize the *unique mission and role of ICANN, as an 'interest' based org* . Given this scenario, for lack of COI policy, I would perhaps suggest to develop a "Disclosure and Transparency" guidelines within some sort of framework of "Code of Ethics". If it is critical to maintain public confidence that GNSO's ethics standards and practices ensure that all potential conflicts of interest are being managed or eliminated, then I suggest the following consideration within the realm of *disclosure:* Determine *whether and what* type of disclosure should be required: 1) does GNSO know enough to prevent and manage conflicts of interest? 2) do those who would be directly affected by such interests i.econstituencies have the information necessary to make informed choices? 3) does the public have access to sufficient information to maintain public confidence in the integrity of GNSO's work? In answering these questions, we need to attempt to balance the needs of GNSO, as well as those of constituencies and the public under the law to an appropriate and reasonable degree of privacy and transparency. Thanks, Sophia On 23/01/06, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
I think Ross' statement is mostly right. In the GNSO, we should be focused on transparency, not conflicts. "Self-regulation" places interested organizations directly in the path of GNSO policy recommendations. This was a matter of design. Given the current structure of the GNSO Council, I fully expect the constituency-elected representatives of the GNSO to vote according to the self-interests of the organizations that elected them (and liaisons such as myself will provide input based on the same set of self-interests). Only the Nominating Committee-appointed members are here to represent the wider public interest. I also expect that each constituency will have a mechanism for determining whether its elected representatives have some private interest that might be in conflict with the constituency's interests. Even for the Nominating Committee elected representatives, I believe there are vetting procedures in place to make sure that no private interests would sway their votes. I am happy for us to have a formal policy, but I suspect that much of the vetting of conflicts is already done at the constituency and NomComm-level.
Bret
Ross Rader wrote:
However, you should note that I have continuously used the term "statement of interest" and not "conflict of interest". The former is simple an enumeration of those interests which may affect my judgment as it relates to particular issues. The second is a situation in which a trusted individual's private interests unduly benefit from their public actions - essentially a betrayal of the public trust.
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
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 <mailto: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 <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: 'Cubberley, <mailto:MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> Maureen (CHT)' ; ross@tucows.com ; 'Bruce Tonkin' <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> 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 <mailto:sophiabekele@gmail.com> SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com <http://www.cbsintl.com/>
Interesting comments by Ross and Marilyn re: implementing true standards of objectivity as well as ICANN's nature of business which is based on "interest: seem to be in conflict of our perusal of COI policy at the GNSO level and leaves us to a challenge of devising a specialized statement. The "testing" of Sarbane-Oxley need not apply to ICANN at all, but the principles behind the legislation, is the cornerstone of what we are trying to accomplish, i.e transparency and accountability as well as the statement of interest. "Testing" can only be performed after policies have been put in place and that should be an independent committee work. In any case, given ICANN's mission and role, I agree with Ross that we start with a statement of interest and work with transparency based rules as the next step. As for launching it a work initiative, if we at least know what should not be included, which seem to be what Ross and Marilyn have suggested, I doubt it would be a cumbersome requirement. But then again, I am the new Councilor!. Sophia On 22/01/06, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
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 <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
*To:* 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)' <MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> ; ross@tucows.com; 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org
*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
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
All, Just my two cents; my understanding of Sarbanes Oxley is that it is only applicable to publicly listed companies listed in the US. I could be wrong, of course, and will check that out. The policy staff is meeting early this week to assess and coordinate our current workloads. But, as always, we will prioritise according to Council's set priorities and support the work that Council wants done. all the best, Maria _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of ICANNSoph Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:19 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Maureen Cubberley; Cubberley, Maureen (CHT); ross@tucows.com; Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest Interesting comments by Ross and Marilyn re: implementing true standards of objectivity as well as ICANN's nature of business which is based on "interest: seem to be in conflict of our perusal of COI policy at the GNSO level and leaves us to a challenge of devising a specialized statement. The "testing" of Sarbane-Oxley need not apply to ICANN at all, but the principles behind the legislation, is the cornerstone of what we are trying to accomplish, i.e transparency and accountability as well as the statement of interest. "Testing" can only be performed after policies have been put in place and that should be an independent committee work. In any case, given ICANN's mission and role, I agree with Ross that we start with a statement of interest and work with transparency based rules as the next step. As for launching it a work initiative, if we at least know what should not be included, which seem to be what Ross and Marilyn have suggested, I doubt it would be a cumbersome requirement. But then again, I am the new Councilor!. Sophia On 22/01/06, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote: 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: 'Cubberley, Maureen <mailto:MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> (CHT)' ; ross@tucows.com ; 'Bruce <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Tonkin' Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> 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 <mailto:sophiabekele@gmail.com> SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com <http://www.cbsintl.com/> -- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
Maria, My previous clarificatiion to Marilyn: Thanks. ------------------- Marilyn, Your intrigue is well taken. You are right in that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and was passed by Congress in 2002. It also affects publicly-traded companies. However, the spate of recent problems in non-profit organizations has led to legislative proposals to extend the provisions of SOX to non-profits. The two areas of SOX applicable to nonprofits are the rules relating to document destruction and whistle-blower protection. In any case, my reference to SOX was purely to disclose my experience in working in areas that we are currently dealing with i,e COI, transparency etc... it is not to suggest the adaption of SOX within ICANN at all, and I agree it is very cumbersome, if we adapt it. Although at a high level, we should be looking at SOX from the perspective of future compliance. As I mentioned above, SOX for non-profit would be a future mandate. Also see this link below just to give you an idea as to where SOX is at for non-profits. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/private_voluntary_cooperation/conf_budak.pdf#search='sarbanesoxley%20for%20nonprofits' Regarding our immediate concern of 'statement of interest', the policy definition of SOX would also NOT be out of scope, but may not directly apply to this particular subject. I am sort of intrigued on how we can implement a transparent policy, where the organization's structure is made of 'interested parties'. That is a perplexing problem and I shall be thinking about that. As for my consulting business, it is not subject to SOX, since it is a private company, but most of the work we are currently doing in the US is providing consultancy in this area. Therefore, I maybe wearing my SOX most of the time. Certainly for ICANN, we are not there yet. I hope I have clarified myself. Sophia On 23/01/06, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@icann.org> wrote:
All,
Just my two cents; my understanding of Sarbanes Oxley is that it is only applicable to publicly listed companies listed in the US. I could be wrong, of course, and will check that out.
The policy staff is meeting early this week to assess and coordinate our current workloads. But, as always, we will prioritise according to Council's set priorities and support the work that Council wants done.
all the best, Maria
------------------------------ *From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *ICANNSoph *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:19 PM *To:* Marilyn Cade *Cc:* Maureen Cubberley; Cubberley, Maureen (CHT); ross@tucows.com; Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest
Interesting comments by Ross and Marilyn re: implementing true standards of objectivity as well as ICANN's nature of business which is based on "interest: seem to be in conflict of our perusal of COI policy at the GNSO level and leaves us to a challenge of devising a specialized statement.
The "testing" of Sarbane-Oxley need not apply to ICANN at all, but the principles behind the legislation, is the cornerstone of what we are trying to accomplish, i.e transparency and accountability as well as the statement of interest. "Testing" can only be performed after policies have been put in place and that should be an independent committee work.
In any case, given ICANN's mission and role, I agree with Ross that we start with a statement of interest and work with transparency based rules as the next step. As for launching it a work initiative, if we at least know what should not be included, which seem to be what Ross and Marilyn have suggested, I doubt it would be a cumbersome requirement. But then again, I am the new Councilor!.
Sophia
On 22/01/06, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
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 <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
*To:* 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)' <MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> ; ross@tucows.com ; 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org
*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
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
Sophia, all, not being familiar with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (which seems to be some US legislation with no relevance in Germany) I find it very hard to judge whether it would be worthwile to consider them for adoption. From my point of view a declaration of interest of each councilor paired with the knowledge of what Constituency they represent should achieve a level of transparency adequate to judge and understand the varios argumentations. Being all representatives of interest groups that is probably as objective as it can get. Thought of the limited resources we have I would rather use them for the tasks we have already on our agenda (at least for the time being). Best, tom -- Thomas Keller Domain Services Schlund + Partner AG Brauerstrasse 48 Tel. +49-721-91374-534 76135 Karlsruhe, Germany Fax +49-721-91374-215 http://www.schlund.de tom@schlund.de Am 23.01.2006 schrieb Sophia B:
Maria,
My previous clarificatiion to Marilyn: Thanks. -------------------
Marilyn,
Your intrigue is well taken. You are right in that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and was passed by Congress in 2002. It also affects publicly-traded companies. However, the spate of recent problems in non-profit organizations has led to legislative proposals to extend the provisions of SOX to non-profits. The two areas of SOX applicable to nonprofits are the rules relating to document destruction and whistle-blower protection.
In any case, my reference to SOX was purely to disclose my experience in working in areas that we are currently dealing with i,e COI, transparency etc... it is not to suggest the adaption of SOX within ICANN at all, and I agree it is very cumbersome, if we adapt it. Although at a high level, we should be looking at SOX from the perspective of future compliance. As I mentioned above, SOX for non-profit would be a future mandate. Also see this link below just to give you an idea as to where SOX is at for non-profits. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/private_voluntary_cooperation/conf_budak.pdf#search='sarbanesoxley%20for%20nonprofits'
Regarding our immediate concern of 'statement of interest', the policy definition of SOX would also NOT be out of scope, but may not directly apply to this particular subject. I am sort of intrigued on how we can implement a transparent policy, where the organization's structure is made of 'interested parties'. That is a perplexing problem and I shall be thinking about that.
As for my consulting business, it is not subject to SOX, since it is a private company, but most of the work we are currently doing in the US is providing consultancy in this area. Therefore, I maybe wearing my SOX most of the time. Certainly for ICANN, we are not there yet.
I hope I have clarified myself.
Sophia
On 23/01/06, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@icann.org> wrote:
All,
Just my two cents; my understanding of Sarbanes Oxley is that it is only applicable to publicly listed companies listed in the US. I could be wrong, of course, and will check that out.
The policy staff is meeting early this week to assess and coordinate our current workloads. But, as always, we will prioritise according to Council's set priorities and support the work that Council wants done.
all the best, Maria
------------------------------ *From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *ICANNSoph *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:19 PM *To:* Marilyn Cade *Cc:* Maureen Cubberley; Cubberley, Maureen (CHT); ross@tucows.com; Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest
Interesting comments by Ross and Marilyn re: implementing true standards of objectivity as well as ICANN's nature of business which is based on "interest: seem to be in conflict of our perusal of COI policy at the GNSO level and leaves us to a challenge of devising a specialized statement.
The "testing" of Sarbane-Oxley need not apply to ICANN at all, but the principles behind the legislation, is the cornerstone of what we are trying to accomplish, i.e transparency and accountability as well as the statement of interest. "Testing" can only be performed after policies have been put in place and that should be an independent committee work.
In any case, given ICANN's mission and role, I agree with Ross that we start with a statement of interest and work with transparency based rules as the next step. As for launching it a work initiative, if we at least know what should not be included, which seem to be what Ross and Marilyn have suggested, I doubt it would be a cumbersome requirement. But then again, I am the new Councilor!.
Sophia
On 22/01/06, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
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 <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
*To:* 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)' <MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> ; ross@tucows.com ; 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org
*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
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Tom, all... Please note my earier response below: "....In any case, my reference to SOX was purely to disclose my experience in working in areas that we are currently dealing with i,e COI, transparency etc... it is not to suggest the adaption of SOX within ICANN at all, and I agree it is very cumbersome, if we adapt it." Despite, if we pursue the path of COI in the future, I will suggest some ideas, which would be quite relevant. Like the sayiing, we will cross the bridge when we come to it. Thanks Sophia On 23/01/06, Thomas Keller <tom@schlund.de> wrote:
Sophia, all,
not being familiar with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (which seems to be some US legislation with no relevance in Germany) I find it very hard to judge whether it would be worthwile to consider them for adoption. From my point of view a declaration of interest of each councilor paired with the knowledge of what Constituency they represent should achieve a level of transparency adequate to judge and understand the varios argumentations. Being all representatives of interest groups that is probably as objective as it can get. Thought of the limited resources we have I would rather use them for the tasks we have already on our agenda (at least for the time being).
Best,
tom
--
Thomas Keller
Domain Services Schlund + Partner AG Brauerstrasse 48 Tel. +49-721-91374-534 76135 Karlsruhe, Germany Fax +49-721-91374-215 http://www.schlund.de tom@schlund.de
Am 23.01.2006 schrieb Sophia B:
Maria,
My previous clarificatiion to Marilyn: Thanks. -------------------
Marilyn,
Your intrigue is well taken. You are right in that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and was passed by Congress in 2002. It also affects publicly-traded companies. However, the spate of recent problems in non-profit organizations has led to legislative proposals to extend the provisions of SOX to non-profits. The two areas of SOX applicable to nonprofits are the rules relating to document destruction and whistle-blower protection.
In any case, my reference to SOX was purely to disclose my experience in working in areas that we are currently dealing with i,e COI, transparency etc... it is not to suggest the adaption of SOX within ICANN at all, and I agree it is very cumbersome, if we adapt it. Although at a high level, we should be looking at SOX from the perspective of future compliance. As I mentioned above, SOX for non-profit would be a future mandate. Also see this link below just to give you an idea as to where SOX is at for non-profits.
Regarding our immediate concern of 'statement of interest', the policy definition of SOX would also NOT be out of scope, but may not directly
apply
to this particular subject. I am sort of intrigued on how we can implement a transparent policy, where the organization's structure is made of 'interested parties'. That is a perplexing problem and I shall be thinking about that.
As for my consulting business, it is not subject to SOX, since it is a private company, but most of the work we are currently doing in the US is providing consultancy in this area. Therefore, I maybe wearing my SOX most of the time. Certainly for ICANN, we are not there yet.
I hope I have clarified myself.
Sophia
On 23/01/06, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@icann.org> wrote:
All,
Just my two cents; my understanding of Sarbanes Oxley is that it is
only
applicable to publicly listed companies listed in the US. I could be wrong, of course, and will check that out.
The policy staff is meeting early this week to assess and coordinate our current workloads. But, as always, we will prioritise according to Council's set priorities and support the work that Council wants done.
all the best, Maria
------------------------------ *From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto: owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *ICANNSoph *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:19 PM *To:* Marilyn Cade *Cc:* Maureen Cubberley; Cubberley, Maureen (CHT); ross@tucows.com; Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest
Interesting comments by Ross and Marilyn re: implementing true standards of objectivity as well as ICANN's nature of business which is based on "interest: seem to be in conflict of our perusal of COI policy at the GNSO level and leaves us to a challenge of devising a specialized statement.
The "testing" of Sarbane-Oxley need not apply to ICANN at all, but the principles behind the legislation, is the cornerstone of what we are trying to accomplish, i.e transparency and accountability as well as the statement of interest. "Testing" can only be performed after policies have been put in place and that should be an independent committee work.
In any case, given ICANN's mission and role, I agree with Ross that we start with a statement of interest and work with transparency based rules as the next step. As for launching it a work initiative, if we at least know what should not be included, which seem to be what Ross and Marilyn have suggested, I doubt it would be a cumbersome requirement. But then again, I am the new Councilor!.
Sophia
On 22/01/06, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
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 <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
*To:* 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)' <MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> ; ross@tucows.com ; 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org
*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
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
Thanks, Maria. Marilyn _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:09 AM To: 'ICANNSoph'; 'Marilyn Cade' Cc: 'Maureen Cubberley'; 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)'; ross@tucows.com; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Conflicts of Interest All, Just my two cents; my understanding of Sarbanes Oxley is that it is only applicable to publicly listed companies listed in the US. I could be wrong, of course, and will check that out. The policy staff is meeting early this week to assess and coordinate our current workloads. But, as always, we will prioritise according to Council's set priorities and support the work that Council wants done. all the best, Maria _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of ICANNSoph Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:19 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Maureen Cubberley; Cubberley, Maureen (CHT); ross@tucows.com; Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest Interesting comments by Ross and Marilyn re: implementing true standards of objectivity as well as ICANN's nature of business which is based on "interest: seem to be in conflict of our perusal of COI policy at the GNSO level and leaves us to a challenge of devising a specialized statement. The "testing" of Sarbane-Oxley need not apply to ICANN at all, but the principles behind the legislation, is the cornerstone of what we are trying to accomplish, i.e transparency and accountability as well as the statement of interest. "Testing" can only be performed after policies have been put in place and that should be an independent committee work. In any case, given ICANN's mission and role, I agree with Ross that we start with a statement of interest and work with transparency based rules as the next step. As for launching it a work initiative, if we at least know what should not be included, which seem to be what Ross and Marilyn have suggested, I doubt it would be a cumbersome requirement. But then again, I am the new Councilor!. Sophia On 22/01/06, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote: 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: 'Cubberley, <mailto:MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> Maureen (CHT)' ; ross@tucows.com ; 'Bruce Tonkin' <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> 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 <mailto:sophiabekele@gmail.com> SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com <http://www.cbsintl.com/> -- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
Maureen: Thanks for the reference to this document, I found it very informative, see http://www.cira.ca/official-doc/16.Conflict_of_Interest_Policy.pdf Best regards. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Cubberley Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:44 PM To: Marilyn Cade; 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)'; ross@tucows.com; 'Bruce Tonkin' Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest 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 <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)' <mailto:MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> ; ross@tucows.com ; 'Bruce Tonkin' <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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
participants (10)
-
Bret Fausett -
Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) -
ICANNSoph -
Maria Farrell -
Marilyn Cade -
Maureen Cubberley -
Michael D. Palage -
Ross Rader -
Sophia B
-
Thomas Keller