ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


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

Re: [ga] COI

  • To: kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] COI
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 08:51:16 -0800 (PST)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=WLezfiASIFbh2c3lJMiepElLqfBrP1y5ac5Kh1Q+eUZtbiSKzTo3iJ9OcwTjrnDRI1Z3ZJZ3yCJTAHgP8eCE9QCqOlAyUWoRlUyYzGpvdOG+E/yW26MAfOtMqy/fsddAkvze710ScGqXNjEOJbhO8hys/w9joV5ZYV9VHrvmJX8=;
  • In-reply-to: <00e201c74799$018ee9a0$1701a8c0@WebBusiness>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In fact yours may or not be a COI issue. It is almost impossible to armchair quarterback issues of such sort.  
  The only standard that will work is "to avoid the appearance of impropriety" . That is why it is amazing that there is not constant reporting in an open and transparent manner, regarding steps taken to avoid COI. Abstaining, Iron curtains, divestiture, full disclosure apriori and the like can be used to avoid tainted self dealing.
  I consider the ICANN situation to in fact require some COI in order to borrow the best minds to fulfill dual roles.  This is OK if and only if ICANN runs the extra mile to disclose and prophylacticly abate concerns. There should even be a weekly public report as to what was reviewed and what steps were taken to avoid impropriety.
   
  Eric
   
  (sorry, for the post in difficult English)

kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          Eric, they proved with dot biz that they do not care if they bump heads with existing tlds or not. that case also proved that they will award contracts to whomever they please regardless of who came up with an idea first. as much as they protect IP interests, this attitude toward previous owners of TLDs puzzles me.
   
   
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: ga 
  Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:40 PM
  Subject: [ga] COI
  

  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.


 
---------------------------------
Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!


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