<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Bylaw Request
I'm
sorry, but the time for amendments is closed. We had weeks to go through
this and really need to stick to the process to be fair to
everyone.
I
think, in any case, we are now working on details and interpretation, which as
you know is always going to be a discussion with any "constitutional"
document. I think we can address this as an intent and interpretation
issue when disclosure comes up. Anyone running for office should be aware
of this sort of sentiment in the constituency.
If a
member of the constituency, for example, isn't satisfied with a disclosure
statement, they can always ask the candidate. A candidate's
non-responsiveness, itself, will be a factor in the votes.
Thanks, Elana
p.s.
Rick - will the bylaws and rop go up this morning for the vote? much
thanks!
Tom,
I agree with your intent. But I don't read 4.6.1.2 as
limiting the disclosure. It says "disclosure of any conflict of interest,
including..." Perhaps we could add the phrase "but not limited to" and make it
clearer. So it would then read:
"4.6.1.2. disclosure of any conflict of interest,
including, but not limited to, contracts ..."
Would that work for
you. Elana, is that still doable?
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE:
[registrars] Bylaw Request
From: "tbarrett"
<tbarrett@encirca.com>
Date: Wed, April 30, 2003 8:34 pm
To:
"'Ross Wm. Rader'" <ross@tucows.com>,
registrars@dnso.org
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 war! y 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|