roberto at icann.org
Sat May 12 02:05:46 EDT 2007
> 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.
I beg to differ, I do believe the matter is relevant, let me try to clarify
I fully understand that you are not talking about a "simple" conflict of
interest, but about obligations that would make the incumbent unable to act
in the best interest ("follow the wishes") of EURALO and ALAC. As per
Patrick, you know the answer. But the question is about Bret.
The fact is that a lawyer has legal obligations to act in the best interest
of his/her client. Obviously, in the fulfillment of his function of ALAC
Liaison to the GNSO, Bret might bump into information that would be useful
for his client's case. In this case, he would be obliged to reveal this
information to his client.
It is easily arguable, that in a case of a legal conflict between ICANN and
a counterpart, things that go in favour of the counterpart are extremely
unlikely not to be damaging for ICANN... ;>)
However, nobody raised the issue, everybody was aware of the declared
potential CoI of Bret, and Bret behaved extremely professionally (as I would
assume you would think Patrick and Sebastien would do), in spite of the fact
that the matter at stake was of consistently higher importance for ICANN.
If you still think that this is not the case, I suspect we can only agree
that we disagree.
> 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
We disagree on this as well.
There is no separate body defined as "the two representative elected by
EURALO to ALAC". The ALAC is composed by 15 people, who vote on the very
same matters with the very same voting weight.
(Incidentally, I can accept a debate on diversity, but since the legal
advice is officially that two EURALO representatives can even belong to the
same ALS, I believe that this point is moot. I have never considered a
problem the fact of having two reps from the same ALS, as my concern was a
completely different one, therefore I would assume that it would not be
considered a problem that two reps come from two different ISOC chapters,
and I would hope that, for the sake of consistency, everybody does the same)
So, the effect of electing two people members of two different ISOC chapters
is relevant only considering the effect on the full ALAC, composed of 15
members. I think that this is, given the composition of membership coming
from other regions, at least not significative. Correct me if I am wrong,
but didn't we have in the past ALAC also two voting members coming from two
different ISOC chapters, both also being ALSes (Vittorio and Sebastian)? And
how has this been a problem? And why all of a sudden it has to become a
I think, and I am expressing my opinion as individual, not "the board's
mainstream opinion" ;>), that we are raising too much the tone and the
problems for things that could be dealt with in a much less conflictual way
and with some common sense.
Anyway, the good news is that in a week or so, when the vote will be over,
whoever is going to be elected is going to act in a professional way in the
best interest of ALAC, and I hope that this whole issue can be forgotten
without to many consequences.
More information about the EURO-Discuss