Conflicts of Interest
Hello All, The GNSO Council does not have a conflict of interest policy. The ICANN bylaws do have section on conflict of interest:
From Section 6, Article VI (Board of Directors)
"The Board, through a committee designated for that purpose, shall require a statement from each Director not less frequently than once a year setting forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way to the business and other affiliations of ICANN. Each Director shall be responsible for disclosing to ICANN any matter that could reasonably be considered to make such Director an "interested director" within the meaning of Section 5233 of the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL"). In addition, each Director shall disclose to ICANN any relationship or other factor that could reasonably be considered to cause the Director to be considered to be an "interested person" within the meaning of Section 5227 of the CNPBCL. The Board shall adopt policies specifically addressing Director, Officer, and Supporting Organization conflicts of interest. No Director shall vote on any matter in which he or she has a material and direct financial interest that would be affected by the outcome of the vote." The board has a conflicts of interest committee, see: http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/ The Board's conflict of interest policy (dated March 1999) is available at: http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar99.htm There is not yet a conflict of interest policy for the Council members of Supporting Organisations. Now there is some debate about whether a member of the Council has an equivalent requirement with regard to voting rules as a Board director, as the Council merely makes recommendations - and such recommendations need to be approved by the Board. However I do think that in the interests of openness and transparency that the GNSO Council should follow at least these two concepts in the Board's conflict of interest policy: (1) At least annually provide a standing statement setting forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way to the business and other affiliations of the ICANN legal entity. (2) With respect to any particular matter then pending before the Council, each Council member should disclose any relationship or other factor that could reasonably be considered to cause the member to be considered to be an "Interested Person," as defined above. Interested person would be basically anyone that has been involved with a legal entity that has a transaction, contract or other arrangement with the ICANN legal entity within the past 12 months. See the Board's policy for further information. Examples could include: - consulting work done for ICANN - consulting work done for a gtld or cctld registry, or current applicant to become a gtld or cctld registry - consulting work done for a registrar - employment with a registry or registrar I recommend that the GNSO Council maintain a page on the GNSO website that carries the annual statement from each Council member. When a new Council member is appointed, I would ask the GNSO Secretariat to request a statement. I would also ask the GNSO Secretariat to contact Council members with regard to updating their statements once a year. I see this being a voluntary initiative as there doesn't seem to be any explicit bylaw requirements. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
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
Hi, I think this is an excellent proposal and endorse it. a. On 20 jan 2006, at 09.56, Ross Rader wrote:
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 also endorse Bruce's voluntary initiative --at least for the time being. I do think the GNSO Council should consider adopting a permanent and mandatory conflict of interest policy. Regards, Lucy
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Avri Doria Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:38 AM To: Ross Rader Cc: Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest
Hi,
I think this is an excellent proposal and endorse it.
a.
On 20 jan 2006, at 09.56, Ross Rader wrote:
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 am in agreement with Lucy Ken Stubbs Lucy.Nichols@nokia.com wrote:
I also endorse Bruce's voluntary initiative --at least for the time being. I do think the GNSO Council should consider adopting a permanent and mandatory conflict of interest policy.
Regards,
Lucy
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Avri Doria Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:38 AM To: Ross Rader Cc: Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest
Hi,
I think this is an excellent proposal and endorse it.
a.
On 20 jan 2006, at 09.56, Ross Rader wrote:
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 agree with all. Sophia On 20/01/06, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@afilias.info> wrote:
I am in agreement with Lucy
Ken Stubbs
Lucy.Nichols@nokia.com wrote:
I also endorse Bruce's voluntary initiative --at least for the time being. I do think the GNSO Council should consider adopting a permanent and mandatory conflict of interest policy.
Regards,
Lucy
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of ext Avri Doria Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:38 AM To: Ross Rader Cc: Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest
Hi,
I think this is an excellent proposal and endorse it.
a.
On 20 jan 2006, at 09.56, Ross Rader wrote:
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
Dear Council Members: Please be advised that the ICANN Board this evening was notified of a special meeting this upcoming Monday to discuss an "Update on Discussions on Proposed VeriSign Settlement." See http://www.icann.org/minutes/ Best regards, Michael D. Palage
Dear Bruce, I see that the Board is getting an update on the progress of discussions on Proposed VeriSign Settlement. The policy activities of the gNSO Council which are directly related should be part of that update. I understand that sometimes it is difficult for the policy activities and their relevance to decisions the Board may undertake to be visible to the full Board. It would be unfortunate if the full Board did not have a good understanding of the progress and the timing related to policy development specific to this agreement. Since Council has just completed a very important step, perhaps the way to ensure a thorough understanding, and the ability of the Board to ask questions of the Council, via our chair, would be to have you join Olof to provide the update. Best regards, Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 1:17 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] ICANN Board Teleconference - 23-Jan-2006 Dear Council Members: Please be advised that the ICANN Board this evening was notified of a special meeting this upcoming Monday to discuss an "Update on Discussions on Proposed VeriSign Settlement." See http://www.icann.org/minutes/ Best regards, Michael D. Palage
participants (8)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
ICANNSoph -
Ken Stubbs -
Lucy.Nichols＠nokia.com -
Marilyn Cade -
Michael D. Palage -
Ross Rader