[ALAC] When will ALAC make its conflict of interest statement?

JJS jjs.global at gmail.com
Tue Mar 20 09:44:35 UTC 2012


*Dear Cheryl & All,*
*
*
*you just reminded us of now much ALAC has done to meet its obligations
under the ALAC Review recommendations, as well as the "considerable amount
of work" by the Board on the subject of Conflicts of Interest. Allow me to
expand on this.*
*
*
*In a way, the quantity of work produced does not guarantee the proper
implementation of all the rules governing Conflict of Interest. Indeed, a
former Chair of the Board, who as a lawyer was careful to keep within the
legal bounds of Conflicts of Interest, did a singularly serious disservice
to the corporation and to our community by failing to act in an ethical
fashion. So, the issue is not an insufficient set of rules and regulations,
but a serious lack of appropriate implementation.*
*
*
*In this respect, the current state of affairs is accurately described by
Beau and others who claim that the Board is either unconscious, or that it
simply prefers to gloss over the problem by exhibiting the amount of its
paperwork. Their message is that everything is under control, just have fun
on the Internet and leave questions of governance to us. The Board knows
better than the community.*
*
*
*I would even argue that the wealth of detail into which supporting
organizations and advisory committees have ventured is a convenient curtain
behind which to hide. In comparison, the issue at hand is strikingly
straightforward, and deserves to be thrown into the limelight: when more
than half the voting members on the Board feel obligated to abstain from
voting because of a declared conflict of interest, is this how the
independent Board of a not-for-profit organization should be composed? In
such a situation, should we be content with the Board Governance Committee,
of which the Chair and several members are "conflicted", blandly declaring
that it has performed a gigantic task and that nothing, really nothing is
amiss?*
*
*
*The wealth of your experience, Dear Cheryl, as well as the extent to which
you have always implicated yourself in community work, commands respect.
When considering your contribution, I feel the urge to bring the Board to a
new standard of accountability, so that your selfless service shall not be
diluted or lost.*
*
*
*Best regards,*
*Jean-Jacques.
*
Le 20 mars 2012 16:23, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl at hovtek.com.au> a écrit :

> @Beau  you raised the point ( also in a related email which I will also
> respond to) "...  What I think ALAC should do now, personally, is push for
> conflict of interest rules to be adopted at all levels, starting with the
> ALAC itself...." As  also mentioned in the Skype Chat
> => "... ..Conflict of Interest ( CoI) policy for ALAC will indeed be
> included in the ROP's and Metrics Review WG that put it's community wide
> call for membership oiut through last week... So it is a matter very much
> on OUR  Agenda and we will of course assume it can be a benchmark for wider
> ICANN modelling or use... You will also note the considerable amount of
> work that the ICANN Board  put into this matter leading up to and  during
> the CR Meeting (and now out for Community Public Comment), so it is indeed
> on many tables at the moment *as it indeed should be*
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> (CLO)
>
>
>
> On 20 March 2012 07:14, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Hope everyone had good journeys back.
> >
> > I assume you all have seen this story in the New York Times?
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/technology/private-fight-at-internet-naming-firm-goes-public.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1332165645-IV28j+gNERC8I8kD5rURmA
> >
> > ALAC is frequently concerned with how it is perceived by others,
> > especially when it comes to representing the user community.
> >
> > For the New York Times to have written a story like this, it must have
> > deemed the story to be relevant to the general public.
> >
> > Yet ALAC, despite having ample opportunity and guidance during the week,
> > failed to make a statement, even when it was already written for them,
> > twice, by me. It distracted itself by claiming the story was no big news,
> > or out of scope, or too confrontational for its multicultural nature,
> etc.
> > etc. And it was distracted by the failure of LACRALO to conduct a
> > meaningful general assembly. Rather than focus on policy issues, such as
> > this one, it focused on elections of its own officers. Fortunately, I do
> > believe Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised the conflict of interest issue in
> the
> > public forum, but, as he eloquently pointed out to the list, he was
> > something of a lone voice in doing so.
> >
> > Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the
> > New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude
> > that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its
> > mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the
> > publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on
> > here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a
> > journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all).
> >
> > Beau Brendler
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki:
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>



More information about the ALAC mailing list