[At-Large] [] TR: ANNOUNCEMENT : Results from Round 2 voting for At-Large selected Board Member for seat #15 of ICANN Board

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 1 December 2010 15:31, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

6. Please identify any other relevant arrangements, interests, or benefits
> as requested in the following three questions:
>
> i. Do you have any type of commercial or non-commercial interest in ICANN
> GNSO policy development processes and outcomes? Please answer “yes” or “no.”
> If the answer is “yes,” please describe the commercial or non-commercial
> interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes.
>
> ii. Are there any arrangements/agreements between you and any other group,
> constituency or person(s) regarding your participation as a work team
> member? Please answer “yes” or “no.” If the answer is “yes,” please describe
> the arrangements/agreements and the name of the group, constituency, or
> person(s).
>
> iii. Do you receive any tangible or intangible benefit from participation
> in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes? For example, if you
> are an academic or NGO and use your position to advance your ability to
> participate, this relationship should be disclosed in the Statement of
> Interest just as should employment by a contracted party or a business
> relationship with a non-contracted party that has an interest in policy
> outcomes. Please answer “yes” or “no.” If the answer is “yes,” please
> describe the tangible or intangible benefits.
>


Thanks for this detail. Now, is it not reasonable to determine that the
above details what ICANN considers to be "interest"?

How does this evolve into Director fears of participation at lower levels of
policymaking?

I understand the time constrains. But if a Director has a background in an
issue, and has something relevant to add to policy development -- whether
fact or opinion -- how does that constitute "interest" by the above
definitions?

I suspect that some of what is happening is due to ambiguity in the word
"interest". But I am concerned that this ambiguity is being manipulated by
those who *like* keeping the Board in a vacuum, and I am eager to ensure
that a whisper campaign of "don't get involved in the grassroots" does not
enshrine such behavior as ICANN culture,


> While this situation is not identical to the one being discussed, I believe
> that it gives a flavor of  the types of considerations that people are
> looking at.  If something is an Interest that could be stated, then it could
> be an Interest that is in conflict.  While California law may focus
> primarily of financial interests, I expect that the legal staff deals with
> Talmudic layers of the onion and seeks to avoid liability by making the
> rules on CoI as protective and extensive as possible.
>

Well, there is already a comment in the ALAC response to the current
Applicant Guidebook, which expresses concern that "risk management" is
evolving as a primary goal of ICANN policy.


Additionally, I have spoken to various Board members who sit and observe
> working groups.  Almost to a man, I think it was all men, they indicate that
> while they can watch, they do not feel they can speak,


Perhaps, but this "feeling" appears to have no basis in policy, and is
instead stems from intimidation used to isolate the Board from its
community.


> Now with new 'activist' Board members like Sébastien and Bertrand, both of
> whom have stretched the boundaries of ICANN practices at times, I am looking
> forward to new understandings and developments in Board participation with
> the Hoi Paloi.
>

As am I.

- Evan