[EURO-Discuss] ALAC

[Adam Peake]

Patrick,

Apologies for the slow reply.


>Adam,
>
>Thanks for asking. I am speaking for myself only here.
>
>This is a FAQ in ICANN circles. We had and still have several ICANN 
>board members (and now staff), who are also either chapter officers 
>and/or trustees. As far as I am aware, this did not pose any problem 
>in this context up to now. I do not see why there could be an issue 
>in the case of the ALAC.



Then I'd better explain again, please see below.


>To me, the ICANN policy on conflicts of interest for the members of 
>the board could be extended to also cover the ALAC representatives. 
>In the unlikely event that an ALAC or RALO position would 
>fundamentally conflict with a one of ISOC, I would just leave the 
>room at the time of voting, I guess. But there are no general 
>answers.
>
>The case of PIR is simple. It is an independent organization. It 
>funds ISOC yes, but the funds are mostly used for IETF work and 
>staff, but nothing goes to the chapters. We do not even get our .org 
>domain name for free. :-) .


you should ask!  ISOC's proposed budget for 2006 mentions $1.2 
million for chapters and membership.  I realize a budget item 
"chapters and membership" doesn't mean that money necessarily flows 
as cash to chapters. But it surely means some benefit to the 
chapters, right?


>PIR is but one of the gTLD registries. It needs to be treated with 
>the same objectivity as any other competitor by ICANN and ALAC.
>
>It is a fact of life that many of us wear different hats. As long as 
>people are transparent on their affiliations, I am fine with that 
>because it allows me to take their answers with a grain of salt. I 
>am much more concerned about undercover lobbyists. In the end, it 
>just a question of personal values and how easily one can find sleep 
>at night.
>
>But this is mostly theorical. ISOC has always used a very broad 
>definition of what chapters and officers are allowed to say.  In 
>more than 7 years, I never had a single instruction about what I was 
>allowed to say or not, and I am not aware this has ever happened. Be 
>reassured that, if I ever got that some of pressure put on me, it 
>would be made public within minutes, along with my resignation.


Thank you.  The last sentence is a very satisfactory answer.

My question was not about conflicts of interest.  I know many people 
wear different hats (who could know Veni and not know :-)  I know 
former and current ISOC trustees serve/have served on the board. But 
they weren't appointed to the ICANN Board because they were ISOC 
trustees, the two are not relevant. Whereas, seems to me the reason 
you're participating in the RALO is because of your relationship with 
ISOC: the ALS you represent is an ISOC chapter, ALS/Chapter is one in 
the same thing.

So my question was, given the obligation chapters seem to have to 
follow ISOC policy (described here 
<http://www.isoc.org/isoc/chapters/policy/> point 5), would the 
representative of an ALS/ISOC Chapter, irrespective of ISOC policy on 
an issue or ISOC's interests in an issue, be able at all times to 
follow the wishes of the EU RALO and ALAC.

Roberto, that you mentioned Bret makes me think you didn't understand 
what I was asking (he's not relevant.) So I guess the question hadn't 
been asked before. Anyway, Patrick's answered.


>And BTW, you could also extend the question to Desiree, who will be 
>part of the Euralo board, while at the same time being a member of 
>the ISOC board and an employee of a major gTLD technical operator 
>and registry.


I didn't think to ask Desiree -- she's standing for the board and 
there seems to be plenty of seats there, but only two ALAC and both 
potentially effected by the question I was asking about ISOC 
Chapter/ALS obligations to ISOC.  So there's diversity in the EU RALO 
board whatever the outcome of the vote, this is not necessarily the 
case with the ALAC selections.

Thanks,

Adam




>Patrick
>
>Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>Do you foresee any situation where your chapter's (i.e. ALS's)
>>obligations to ISOC would require you to put ISOC's interests ahead
>>of the EU RALO and or ALAC?
>>
>>For example, one could imagine situations where an ISOC position was
>>contrary to that of the EU RALO and/or ALAC, or more extreme, perhaps
>>some discussion regarding ISOC's contractual relationships with ICANN
>>as the steward and beneficiary of .ORG?  Where would your obligations
>>lie?
>>
>>
>
>--
>Patrick Vande Walle
>Check my blog at <http://patrick.vande-walle.eu>http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
>Jabber me at <mailto:patrick at vande-walle.eu>patrick at vande-walle.eu