Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest
I think Ross' statement is mostly right. In the GNSO, we should be focused on transparency, not conflicts. "Self-regulation" places interested organizations directly in the path of GNSO policy recommendations. This was a matter of design. Given the current structure of the GNSO Council, I fully expect the constituency-elected representatives of the GNSO to vote according to the self-interests of the organizations that elected them (and liaisons such as myself will provide input based on the same set of self-interests). Only the Nominating Committee-appointed members are here to represent the wider public interest. I also expect that each constituency will have a mechanism for determining whether its elected representatives have some private interest that might be in conflict with the constituency's interests. Even for the Nominating Committee elected representatives, I believe there are vetting procedures in place to make sure that no private interests would sway their votes. I am happy for us to have a formal policy, but I suspect that much of the vetting of conflicts is already done at the constituency and NomComm-level.
Bret
Ross Rader wrote:
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.
|