Hi, Roberto and all, On 5/5/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:

BTW, Bret Fausett was at the same time the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO and the lawyer of a company suing ICANN, and the matter raised much less concern. Sometimes I wonder why.

I don't. Haven't you noticed that usually it is exactly that case - people who are trying to help, who are being humbler, always face questioning of their motives; people who are suing ICANN (or provide services in that matter) are never questioned about their motives, etc. It seems the more quiet one is, the more they get people on top of them (to try to perephrase a Bulgarian proverb). veni

And here is something from Germany: "Und die einem stehn im Schatten und die anderen im Licht, die im Lichte kann man sehen, die im Schatten sieht man nicht" :-))) Macky Messer in Bertold Brecht / Kurt Weil, Dreigroschenoper w ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Roberto Gaetano Gesendet: So 06.05.2007 14:45 An: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe' Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] ALAC Chi pecora si fa, il lupo se la mangia. Italian version rg ________________________________ From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Veni Markovski Sent: 06 May 2007 13:57 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] ALAC Hi, Roberto and all, On 5/5/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote: BTW, Bret Fausett was at the same time the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO and the lawyer of a company suing ICANN, and the matter raised much less concern. Sometimes I wonder why. I don't. Haven't you noticed that usually it is exactly that case - people who are trying to help, who are being humbler, always face questioning of their motives; people who are suing ICANN (or provide services in that matter) are never questioned about their motives, etc. It seems the more quiet one is, the more they get people on top of them (to try to perephrase a Bulgarian proverb). veni

Patrick, Apologies for the slow reply.

Adam,

Thanks for asking. I am speaking for myself only here.

This is a FAQ in ICANN circles. We had and still have several ICANN board members (and now staff), who are also either chapter officers and/or trustees. As far as I am aware, this did not pose any problem in this context up to now. I do not see why there could be an issue in the case of the ALAC.

Then I'd better explain again, please see below.

To me, the ICANN policy on conflicts of interest for the members of the board could be extended to also cover the ALAC representatives. In the unlikely event that an ALAC or RALO position would fundamentally conflict with a one of ISOC, I would just leave the room at the time of voting, I guess. But there are no general answers.

The case of PIR is simple. It is an independent organization. It funds ISOC yes, but the funds are mostly used for IETF work and staff, but nothing goes to the chapters. We do not even get our .org domain name for free. :-) .

you should ask! ISOC's proposed budget for 2006 mentions $1.2 million for chapters and membership. I realize a budget item "chapters and membership" doesn't mean that money necessarily flows as cash to chapters. But it surely means some benefit to the chapters, right?

PIR is but one of the gTLD registries. It needs to be treated with the same objectivity as any other competitor by ICANN and ALAC.

It is a fact of life that many of us wear different hats. As long as people are transparent on their affiliations, I am fine with that because it allows me to take their answers with a grain of salt. I am much more concerned about undercover lobbyists. In the end, it just a question of personal values and how easily one can find sleep at night.

But this is mostly theorical. ISOC has always used a very broad definition of what chapters and officers are allowed to say. In more than 7 years, I never had a single instruction about what I was allowed to say or not, and I am not aware this has ever happened. Be reassured that, if I ever got that some of pressure put on me, it would be made public within minutes, along with my resignation.

Thank you. The last sentence is a very satisfactory answer. My question was not about conflicts of interest. I know many people wear different hats (who could know Veni and not know :-) I know former and current ISOC trustees serve/have served on the board. But they weren't appointed to the ICANN Board because they were ISOC trustees, the two are not relevant. Whereas, seems to me the reason you're participating in the RALO is because of your relationship with ISOC: the ALS you represent is an ISOC chapter, ALS/Chapter is one in the same thing. So my question was, given the obligation chapters seem to have to follow ISOC policy (described here <http://www.isoc.org/isoc/chapters/policy/> point 5), would the representative of an ALS/ISOC Chapter, irrespective of ISOC policy on an issue or ISOC's interests in an issue, be able at all times to follow the wishes of the EU RALO and ALAC. Roberto, that you mentioned Bret makes me think you didn't understand what I was asking (he's not relevant.) So I guess the question hadn't been asked before. Anyway, Patrick's answered.

And BTW, you could also extend the question to Desiree, who will be part of the Euralo board, while at the same time being a member of the ISOC board and an employee of a major gTLD technical operator and registry.

I didn't think to ask Desiree -- she's standing for the board and there seems to be plenty of seats there, but only two ALAC and both potentially effected by the question I was asking about ISOC Chapter/ALS obligations to ISOC. So there's diversity in the EU RALO board whatever the outcome of the vote, this is not necessarily the case with the ALAC selections. Thanks, Adam

Patrick

Adam Peake wrote:

...

Do you foresee any situation where your chapter's (i.e. ALS's) obligations to ISOC would require you to put ISOC's interests ahead of the EU RALO and or ALAC?

For example, one could imagine situations where an ISOC position was contrary to that of the EU RALO and/or ALAC, or more extreme, perhaps some discussion regarding ISOC's contractual relationships with ICANN as the steward and beneficiary of .ORG? Where would your obligations lie?

-- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog at <http://patrick.vande-walle.eu>http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Jabber me at <mailto:patrick@vande-walle.eu>patrick@vande-walle.eu

Dear Adam, Again speaking for myself only, although I am not sure this conversation about ISOC is of any interest for other members. Adam Peake wrote:

ISOC's proposed budget for 2006 mentions $1.2 million for chapters and membership. I realize a budget item "chapters and membership" doesn't mean that money necessarily flows as cash to chapters. But it surely means some benefit to the chapters, right? Well, to be precise, this budget covers the 3 or 4 staff members who handle relations with chapters, individual and organizational members. There is about $100.000 used for small grants to members projects (not only chapters). But again, the benefits we chapters get from this are very limited. I do not think one can say that we "owe" something to HQ. Actually, the reverse is more true. Without chapters and individual members, ISOC would be yet another industrial lobbying group. Whereas, seems to me the reason you're participating in the RALO is because of your relationship with ISOC: the ALS you represent is an ISOC chapter, ALS/Chapter is one in the same thing. We are not participating in the RALO because of ISOC. We are participating in both structures because we think they are both useful tools to spread values we believe in. Our local group has similar views as ISOC right now, and we think it is a good environment for us to work with, just like we hope ALAC will be. We signed an agreement, a franchise if you want, to use the ISOC name. Should our values differ in the future, we would simply terminate the agreement. Our legitimacy comes from our base, not from the top. So my question was, given the obligation chapters seem to have to follow ISOC policy (described here <http://www.isoc.org/isoc/chapters/policy/> point 5), would the representative of an ALS/ISOC Chapter, irrespective of ISOC policy on an issue or ISOC's interests in an issue, be able at all times to follow the wishes of the EU RALO and ALAC. In the framework of this RALO, I am serving the people who trust me, ie the members of ISOC Luxembourg ASBL, which happens to be also an ISOC chapter at this point of time. If I am trusted by other RALOs to serve on the ALAC, I would try my best to serve them, with a willingness to work for the common interest.

With regard to ISOC, it is also my job to escalate my membership's concerns to the board and management, especially when ISOC has positions which the chapter might not agree with, and see how they can be changed. In summary, I think my legitimacy is based on the people who have chosen me. If they think I am wrong, or wrongdoing, or serving other interests than theirs, they can vote me out next year. As you see, I have depicted a bottom-up approach, not a top-down one. And believe me, I can live with an angry phone call, should I ever receive one from ISOC. I am not sure I have convinced you, but this is probably the best answer I can give. Warm regards, Patrick