[At-Large] [ALAC] TR: ANNOUNCEMENT : Results from Round 2 voting for At-Large selected Board Member for seat #15 of ICANN Board
evan at telly.org
Wed Dec 1 15:07:59 UTC 2010
Then Sébastien, attending virtual ALAC meetings and being on the mailing
lists but with no ALAC vote, has nothing to worry about.
Still, I'd like to know where in the bylaws or CoI guidelines it says that
participation in low-level policy development negates one's ability to
discuss that policy at the Board level. That's absolutely insane. One would
think that having Directors engageed in policy besides the last-minute
Board-meeting yes/no would be encouraged, not considered grounds for
recusal. It's brave and interested to one to be interested to how the
sausages are made.
I'd still like to know where that intimidation process exists in ICANN
documentation. Can anyone reading this who is -- or has been -- on the
NomComm please help elaborate?
On 1 December 2010 09:21, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> At 01/12/2010 07:51 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> On 30 November 2010 18:08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca >
> Availability is not the only issue. If Sebastien participates to too
> great an extent on a particular issue, he may be seen to be in a
> conflict position and would have to recuse himself if that issue
> comes to the Board for discussion or decision.
> Are you really saying that great interest in an issue, and a deep desire to
> understand the public attitude towards that issue (but without any financial
> or organisational ties) constitutes a conflict of interest?
> PLEASE tell me where to find that in the bylaws. I can't think of a more
> fundamental A&T issue.
> I've always considered CoI to mean financial interest or, if defined more
> broadly, attachment to an organization that has a financial or regulatory
> relationship with ICANN. Until ICANN decides that it needs to regulate the
> public, I can't think of any kind of public consultation -- even a very
> high-profile one -- that would be considered a CoI. If ICANN defines CoI
> that way, it is REALLY out of touch and deliberately unaccountable in a way
> that is unacceptable.
> - Evan
> I don't think that "interest and desire to understand" is any problem at
> all. Actually participating in the crafting of some proposal (or some
> similar involvement) *might* be. This is the same reason that Directors do
> not participate in the policy development process (and you may have noticed
> that the two Directors who signed up for the VI WG did so as "observers",
> and even then did not tend to participate.
> In any case, this was an alert that I was given during the Director
> selection process, and I passed it on in this forum as a *possible*
More information about the At-Large