RE: [council] Conflicts of Interest

["Cubberley, Maureen \(CHT\)" <MCubberley@xxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 8:57 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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