RE: [registrars] Bylaw Request

["tbarrett" <tbarrett@encirca.com>]

Ross,

I agree with you when you say "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."

It would be fine it we stopped here.  But I object when we narrow this to
only apply to relationships with "someone who included in the membership of
another constituency."  I do not know what this means.  "membership"
typically requires a pro-active step for someone to join. 

A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest regardless if the third
party is a member of any ICANN constituency.

The matter of conflict is not whether someone has a relationship with a
"member" of another constituency but that there two members of the Registrar
constituency who have a non-obvious conflict that should be revealed.  I
object to trying to specify that the conflict of interest needs to be with a
"member of another ICANN constituency".  

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:59 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Bylaw Request


> 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