RE: [council] Conflicts of Interest

[<Lucy.Nichols@xxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Avri Doria
>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:38 AM
>To: Ross Rader
>Cc: Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>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
>>
>
>