Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest
First, let me remind everyone of a fact that I pointed out at our council meeting in Vancouver - that the membership of this council, by and large, consists of representatives of special interest groups. "EVERYBODY AT THIS TABLE IS A STAKEHOLDER. WE ALL HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE." http://www.icann.org/meetings/vancouver/captioning-gnso-council-02dec05.htm I don't believe this has substantially changed over the last few weeks. ;-)However, you should note that I have continuously used the term "statement of interest" and not "conflict of interest". The former is simple an enumeration of those interests which may affect my judgment as it relates to particular issues. The second is a situation in which a trusted individual's private interests unduly benefit from their public actions - essentially a betrayal of the public trust. It only takes a very quick evaluation of our respective interests to come to the conclusion that we could each quite often be in a position of conflict of interest. This is one of the primary reasons why this organization does not make policy, it makes recommendations. Our work is checked by a superior body - one that is intended to be free of these same conflicts because we cannot be. This is why it is imperative that we make our interests in specific issues known and continue to do so over time as these interests change. For instance, two years ago, Tucows had no interests in the secondary names market - today, our interest is substantial. This dramatically changes the position my company takes on related issues. It changes our advocacy at a constituency level and it influences our work within the GNSO. In this forum, that of the GNSO Council, I represent the interests of accredited registrars. Registrars have a vital interest in each and every issue before the GNSO. Under a standard conflict of interest management policy, I would likely need to recuse myself on most issues - as would most of you. As you can see, this quickly becomes an untenable proposition. Second, I believe my proposal has been misinterpreted. I would like to see Bruce's recommendation for us each to file statements of interests as mandatory for all councilors. I believe we owe it to each other, the GNSO and the general community to disclose what our special interests are. However, because of these special interests, I do not believe that adopting a process of recusal, et al will be useful. To this end, I proposed that we adopt Bruce's proposal as mandatory and build upon it over time as our experience with these types of guidelines grows. Implementing true standards of objectivity go against the structure of the GNSO. While I believe it is incumbent on Councilors to conduct ourselves in a manner that is consistent with ICANN's goals, mission and mandate - i.e. with regards to the "big picture" - it is impossible for us to do so without regard for the interests of our respective constituency members. Of course, these comments pertain only to those that represent constituencies, but I don't think that we can expect our appointed members and liaisons to conduct themselves in any way different from those that are elected from within the GNSO. We have much work before us, so lets take a small step forward, adopt Bruce's proposal as mandatory and keep an eye on its effectiveness while we attend to the more important work items before us. -ross ICANNSoph wrote: Bruce, I also want to share my experience in working in the development and implementation of conflict-of-interest (COI) issues within my career in Audit and recently, within the framework of Sarbane-Oxley legislation in various orgs, which should be useful for us. I would like to volunteer along with Maureen in contributing on the proposed task force for the design of COI. Basically, COI exist when professional judgement concerning one interest tend to be unduly influenced by another interest, be it within individuals or institutions. Despite anyone's profit or gain, the appearance of COI (as we say in Audit) is as destructive of confidence as actual gain or profit. In our case, while not a regulatory mandate, it would be an institutional statement of ethical standards based upon the act of total objectivity with regards to ICCAN's interest. Regards, Sophia On 21/01/06, Maureen Cubberley <m.cubberley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:During my CIRA Chair days, we developed a conflict of interest policy, with the assistance of one of the country's leading legal firms. Ross, would CIRA be willing to share its policy with the Council? Maureen ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> *To:* 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)' <MCubberley@xxxxxxxxx> ; ross@xxxxxxxxxx; 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> *Cc:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx *Sent:* Friday, January 20, 2006 3:38 PM *Subject:* RE: [council] Conflicts of Interest I'm also interested in supporting the development of an effective Interest Statement, and a discussion of what creates a conflict that requires a recusement, versus a disclosure. Also, we should examine how we implement such a program. Grant has shared with the BC the way that InternetNZ addresses, and perhaps there are other useful models also about to quickly get a sense of. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:04 AM To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx; Bruce Tonkin Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [council] Conflicts of Interest 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 beanyexplicit 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@xxxxxxxxx SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
|