ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] COI

  • To: ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [ga] COI
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:40:47 -0800 (PST)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=brbqgaJfUtOAGm3Pk2B9ZKvxxcv7DJnvVBnLVSHTxKclXxHPVVyyIq7ZQzx8sSZ7hbGQjntdYMqmiMCZJT8zr6lG/s4UVK6nO0i8NskiM8JXr9OpdhiTxR+nYjkwqoQ8oAj3X07kXDzLj3d6tdCJmcjF7CSTIka237HMY6+Hrlg= ;
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I find it a little interesting that in all the short time I have been active on the GA that I have never seen an announcement of import coming from the committee dealing with conflict of Interest; http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar99.htm
   
  Certainly it is innate that a corporation designed to "regulate" those enterprizes that it derives fees from would have conflicts with those whom it does not derive fees from. Yes that is confusing but it is meant to be because of the conflict. Also it is a clear conflict to authorize new TLDs that conflict with existing TLDs that are existing clients. This is not to say that doing the above is in contrast with the MOU with the DOC.
   
  And it is necessary to do what needs to be done to have these conflicts. Heck at least one member of the BOD is an "evangelist" with a company that derives benefits (or detriments).  If that is not a severe blatant conflict of interest I do not know what is. (look up enagalist).
   
  Well anyway I see that as a necessary evil. To get the best you have to play the best. But at least this committee should be on top of it, with constant open and transparent reports.
   
  Eric

 
---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>