Re: [registrars] Bylaw Request

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> I think the current language too narrowly defines areas of disclosure.
For
> example "member (or observer) of another ICANN constituency" means what?
> Someone who pays dues to another constituency?  Someone who attends ICANN
> meetings?  Is a company automatically a member or observer of a
constituency
> if they never have attended or observed an ICANN meeting?

I'm not sure that I understand the question Tom - someone is a member of
another constituency if that someone is included in the membership of
another constituency. The answer entirely depends on how the other
constituency qualifies members. The point is that the person filing the
disclosure knows what they are a member of and when they are likely to have
a conflict of interests. As others have pointed out in the past, we don't
need to set up tribunals and undertake witch-hunts - we have to have a basic
belief that our members are all fundamentally honest and will come clean
with conflicts when they arise. If not, they run the risk of someone else
making the disclosure on their behalf - which is usually not the best way
for things to turn out.

As far as the specific proposal goes, I'm not sure that we gain much from
adding this specific language - or what legal hot-buttons we might be
inadvertently pushing if we included it - I'm always wary of anything that
singles out lawyers for special treatment - even if it is just free ice
cream.

                     -rwr




Got Blog? http://www.byte.org

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard