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

Wed Mar 21 16:59:08 UTC 2012

Good day to you all,

I have taken the version of the CoI statement done by Carlton (Thank you
Carlton) and adjusted it as pasted beneath.

***What would be useful to support this statement would be a list of CoI
issues/instances identified over the last year at the very least to
buttress our statement - this would be where I would include references to
the CEOs speech)

*****

The At-Large Advisory Committee is concerned at the minimal response by the
Board to the growing instances of glaring conflicts of Interest issues
within ICANN and its various ocnstitutencies. This has been raised both
internally by ICANn members as well as by externals outside of the ICANN
community.

The impact/toll this is taking on ICANN’s credibility as a steward of the
multistakeholder nature of the Internet governance ecosystem and its
sustainability in the in the global environment is very troubling in light
of the continuing threats.

We as the ALAC asserts that ICANN needs to promptly address this growing
perception by adopting and applying the language of the Affirmation of
Commitments with respect to Conflict of Interest.  We refer to the
explanatory text for the rejection of all proposals to manage the IANA
contract by the United States Department of Commerce which stated ‘a need
for {the} 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.”  The intent and message is clear and unmistakable
and we as the ICANN community woldbe wise to heed  such direct criticism of
our systems.

Till date it has become even more obvious with a series of credible
instances and situations that ICANN is very much riddled with conflicts of
Interest when compared with or measured by contemporary best practice in
corporate governance frameworks and standards.

{Indeed, with the identification of oneclass 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.}

*[not sure about including this line or reference to Rod’s speech {lending
it more significance than necessary} but rather specific instances could be
used here]*

* *

The evidence and arguments are compelling enough for the ALAC to agree with
these but not at the expense of eliminating the domain name industry from
participation in a viable multistakeholder model of governance. Rather its
influence must be unbiased, balanced and far from totalitarian in nature.
We do not for instance, perceive it to be advantageous that a domain name
industry representative should hold the  chairmanship of the Nominating
Committee at this point – juxtaposed with the many other powerful
influencer roles held by industry representatives across ICANN
constituencies.  The counteracting argument that a non-voting Chair is
without power is simplistic and undermines what is known of organizational
behavoiour and the power of influencers – voting powers or not. It is noted
that as clarified to us by NomCom senior leadership, no conflict of
interest framework exists within the committee to govern external financial
conflicts of interest at present  - as only fiduciary relationships with
and within ICANN itself is addressed.

We believe ICANN’s already tenous public credibility is being strained to a
breaking point in this regard – and we can hardly afford another major and
public embarrassment. We, as the ALAC, representing end-users in this
complex ecosystem, urge the ICANN board to acknowledge and address the
current gaps in conflict-of-interest guidelines within the community by
taking immediate actionable steps to engage an impartial third party to
review, propose and support the implementation of a conflict of interest
strategy across all its constituencies.

*****

TT

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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)
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>

-- 
Mrs. Titi Akinsanmi

Consultant/Researcher
Mobile: +27 83 300 7105
titi.akinsanmi at gmail.com
Impacting My Generation