Dear John
For some time now, it has been a good idea to bring the Council, and
therefore its TFs, into alignment with a single ICANN approach on statements
of Interest and Conflicts of Interest.
There has even been discussion of this at the Council level, and I know that
you have had some thoughts relevant to this, from our discussions when I
asked you to clarify the ICANN policies re conflicts and "interests" when I
launched my new business, and left AT&T.
I would assume that the same requirements of the Board, should be
generalizable to the SOs, and their TFs.
I hereby request that the General Counsel's office attend the next Council
call and provide clarification of what is the ICANN policy and how it is
complied with by the Board, and any members of the Advisory Committees, and
then, perhaps we can discuss how to create a mirror process for at least
this SO. However, given that conflicts apply to all SOs and
Advisory Committees, perhaps a unified approach makes sense.
I have attempted to address the questions raised, and it seems to me that
there is no standard approach across the SOS, and consistency with the Board
practices on how client relationships are declared - e.g. I understand that
the list of clients is provided confidentially to a "conflicts" committee,
or something line that. Perhaps we can just enlist the same Board committee
to be the recipient of the "client" lists of any Councilors, or TF members.
I think this is a short list of those who might be providing such a list,
and it should not be onerous to the Board committee to provide that same
"repository and review". That may not be the answer, but I'm sure that there
is one that is appropriate.
In the interest of fairness and non discriminatory treatment of all
Councilors and TF members, this seems the most appropriate step to take.
As you know, I have previously raised the need for this process. We are all
very busy, and I respect that.
However, given the concerns expressed by a colleague of mine from industry
[see string below], I urge that this issue be addressed quickly.
Best regards,
Marilyn Cade
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David W. Maher
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:40 PM
To: Marilyn Cade; pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'John Jeffrey'; Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest
Dear Marilyn:
Thank you for your message.
I do not believe that disclosure of your clients related to the
single letter names is adequate.
Are you saying that your only clients who might have an interest in
the outcome of the PDPFEB06 are "AT&T and Overstock.com."?
If you have other clients that might have an interest, they should be
disclosed, publicly and promptly.
As I said, the PDP participants are entitled to know who is paying
you to promote the positions you take.
Best regards
David
At 10:56 AM 6/7/2006, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Dear David,
Thank you for raising your concern openly so that it can be responded to
and
address any concerns or questions that may exist on the part of any TF
member, or members of the ICANN community.
In Brussels, I named my clients related to the single letter names in our
discussion, and again, yesterday, on the call I stated that the clients for
the area of reserved names were AT&T and Overstock.com. As it turns out,
AT&T is not interested in single letters, but "symbols". Not to bore
everyone here but symbols have different technological issues than single
letters and thus it is very unlikely that there would be any discussion
feasible of releasing symbols of any nature.
I'm not sure if you are asking if I am trying to represent clients, but
without compensation, with the idea that they pay me for "outcomes". If
that
is the question, then no. Not the case.
Let me address statements of interest, however. I agree with David that the
statements are not often easy to read for implications on conflicts, when
they only mention the name of a company, or suggest that the only issue is
whether there is a financial relationship to a registry or registrar. Let
me
support David's call for all TF members to examine their statements and
think about whether their interests are clearly identified.
AS I think everyone knows, the Council and its TFs are guided by policies
that also affect the Board of Directors.
Thanks again, David, for asking so that this can be addressed.
Best Regards,
Marilyn Cade
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David W. Maher
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:52 AM
To: pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest
In yesterday's teleconf, I again raised the issue of Marilyn Cade's
failure to comply with the requirements for filing a statement of
interest in order to participate in this PDP.
The statements of interest on file are available at:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/statements-of-interest-pdp-feb06
-
apr.html
Marilyn's statement includes the following:
"The clients of my business are concerned about the security and
stability of the Internet, and are strong advocates of ICANN's role
in managing and coordinating the technical aspects of the Internet.
I do not believe that I have conflicts of interest with ICANN. From
time to time, I may have clients who have a direct policy interest in
a particular policy area that is, o publicly could be active at ICANN. At
present, two clients that I advise have an interest in reserved names
in gTLDs. I have disclosed that to the gNSO Council, and to the
Business Constituency and in public statements in the ICANN's public
forum and to the ICANN senior staff."
This is not an adequate disclosure. It is clearly inconsistent with
the extent of disclosure made by other participants. The fact that
disclosure may have been made in other fora does not excuse the
failure to disclose the identity of these clients to this PDP.
We are entitled to know who is paying Marilyn to take positions on
the issues in this PDP. We are also entitled to know what
arrangements she may have for compensation contingent on the outcome
of this PDP, even if there is not currently a client relationship.
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
1775 Wiehle Ave, #102A
Reston, VA 20190 USA
(v) +1-312-876-8055
(f) +1-312-876-7934
http://www.pir.org