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

Wed Mar 21 00:20:03 UTC 2012

Here under is my version of Beau's draft letter to the Board for your
advice and consent. As promised, this is intended to be sent to the Board.
--------------------------------------

The At-Large Advisory Committee is concerned by the Board's response to the
recent spate of conflict of interest matters raised from both inside and
outside the ICANN community. We are troubled by the possible impacts on
ICANN's credibility as a steward of the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance and the sustainability of that model in the global environment,
especially in light of clear and present threats.

In our view, ICANN must seize this moment to right itself by adopting and
applying the language of the Affirmation of Commitments with respect to
conflicts of interest.  Indeed, in its explanatory text for rejecting all
of the proposals - including one from ICANN - for managing IANA affairs,
the United States Department of Commerce avers a “need for structural
separation of policy-making from implementation, a robust companywide
conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened respect for
local country laws and a series of consultation and reporting requirements
to increase transparency and accountability to the international
community.”  Their message is unmistakable and it would be wise to heed the
warning.

The credible evidence so far suggests that top to bottom, ICANN is riddled
with conflicts of interest as measured by contemporary best practice
corporate governance frameworks.  Indeed, with the identification of one
class of conflicts by CEO Rod Beckstrom as a “significant threat” to ICANN,
we are at a watershed moment.

Mr Beckstrom's proposal for remedy includes that of ICANN board candidates
be “financially independent of the domain name industry.”  He also posited
reform of the board selection process  ”not just desirable".  He calls for
a "fully independent and non-conflicted NomCom" in place before the next
nomination cycle begins.

The evidence and arguments are compelling enough for the ALAC to agree with
them. While we would not wish to eliminate the domain name industry from
participation in what must be a viable multistakeholder model of
governance, that influence must be balanced and not overwhelming. For
example, we do not believe it is a good thing for declared domain name
industry representatives to hold the  chairmanship of the Nominating
Committee.  The counteracting argument that a non-voting Chair is without
power is not only simplistic but mocks what we know of organizational
behaviour.  And as we now understand from the NomCom's senior leadership,
 no conflict of interest framework exists within the committee governing
external financial conflicts of interest – only fiduciary relationships
with ICANN itself are addressed.****

We believe ICANN’s public credibility is being strained to breaking point
in this regard. And another major embarrassment is hardly affordable.

We urge the ICANN board to acknowledge the current gaps in
conflict-of-interest guidelines within the community and to immediate steps
to engage an impartial third party to review and propose a conflict of
interest framework to remedy and relieve the community of the serious
inherent implications.

---------- end -of- statement --------------

 - Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:44 AM, JJS <jjs.global at gmail.com> wrote:

> *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)
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>