[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] PROPOSED RESOLUTION: NEUTRALITY OF STAFF AND COUNSEL

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kahty and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested
parties,

KathrynKL@aol.com wrote:

>    Adam (ajp@glocom.ac.jp) wrote:
> <<Key fault of the Evolution and Reform Committee is that they have
> not
> considered the role of staff and counsel. Like wondering why Enron
> failed without looking at Arthur Andersen.
> Anyway, could you explain [proposed resolution text]
> >The ICANN Board should take immediate steps to adopt a policy
> >which requires that no staff or counsel of ICANN who is engaged in
> policy
> >or legal recommendations or reports shall directly or indirectly
> represent
> (as
> >a legal matter) or directly or indirectly benefit (as a financial
> matter)
> from
> >individuals or entities who participate in any of the ICANN
> constituencies
> >or in any ICANN process.
> >>
>
> Adam:
> I've noticed that Hans Klein has not had a chance to respond to this
> important email.  I hope you don't mind if I take a stab... As you
> point out,
> the Reform Committee does not address issues of staff and counsel.
> This is a
> major oversight because staff and counsel play such a critical role in
> the
> ICANN process.
>
> Staff and counsel generally do the vast majority of the research,
> analysis,
> interaction with the public via comments, presentation to the Board,
> and
> recommendations for final action.  The .ORG process was a good example
> of
> this process.  Ultimately, the staff and counsel made the final,
> single,
> recommendation to the Board.
>
> Despite this broad authority, the ICANN conflicts of interest policy
> does not
> apply to staff and counsel.  It applies to Board members, officers
> (such as
> Stuart Lynn) and supporting organization leaders, but not to ICANN's
> own
> counsel (including general counsel) or senior staff.
>
> What the resolution says in plain English is that the same rules must
> apply
> across the Board - to senior staff, to senior counsel, to officers and
> to
> Board members.  If you are being paid, or someone in your company is
> being
> paid, by an individual or entity who have a vested interested in the
> outcome
> of an ICANN process, you shouldn't be the person advising the ICANN
> Board
> about it.  It is a matter of basic fairness.  regards, kathy (kleiman,
>
> acm-igp)

  I agree with your remarks and comments here completely Kathy.  Of
course
we have been here several times before only to get incessant denials
from
that very same ICANN Counsel, and organization members such as
constituency, task force and committee members with respect to broad
and egregious conflict of interests (COI) problem in the past and still
ongoing now.  Therefor we [INEGroup] members, stakeholders all,
do hope that this resolution will be taken seriously by the DOC/NTIA
as it should have been in '99 when these COI problems were discussed
and brought forward before to the DOC/NTIA's as well as the ICANN
BOD and staff's attention.

>
>
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html