For the record, as I mentioned in yesterday's call, I am opposed to including conflict of interest rules at the selection criteria level, if only for the fact they are highly subjective, and I see no way to unambigeously objectify such rules. Like Olivier, I would welcome EURALO's input and support on this matter. Patrick On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:09:23 +0200, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Adam:
Le 19/05/2010 07:03, Adam Peake a écrit :
Olivier, Patrick:
Thanks for the information about the design team's work on yesterday's call. Seems the team is getting into a mess.
Thank you for launching the discussion. I would not go as far as saying that the team is getting into a mess. There are just two points of view around one subject which has not been resolved - the subject of "conflict of interest" - what additional restrictions, if any, should the At Large ICANN Board applicants abide by prior to even applying.
The discussion, which is not confidential in the interest of transparency, can be found on:
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/absdt_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2010-...
ICANN has are rules about conflict of interest that have served the organization pretty well. There are voting and non-voting board members (always have been) with interests in registries/registrars, people who consult on domain name business. A broad statement to guide the BCEC should be enough, don't tie it's hands.
Hope EURALO agrees new restrictions are unnecessary and we can quickly give you some support to get the team's work finished with a minimal set of sensible rules.
Clearly, Patrick and I would appreciate EURALO input. An endorsement from EURALO will lend some weight to our points of view - if this is indeed something EURALO members can agree on.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu