[ncdnhc-discuss] [Fwd: Harold Feld's Resignation from NCDNHC Evaluation Team]

Fri Sep 6 00:01:49 CEST 2002

Harold,

it is my understanding that you have been exemplarily open and frank in
this process, as transpires clearly from the correspondence you transmit
to us and the documents posted on the ICANN site. I am personally sorry
for this development after achieving a significant NCDNHC contribution
which fortunately is not erased nor tainted by this most recent part.

I hope you can allay any feelings of regret and frustration and
concentrate on the positive results, short and long term.

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
 Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Harold J. Feld wrote:

>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Harold Feld's Resignation from NCDNHC Evaluation Team
> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 14:08:33 -0700
> From: Louis Touton <touton at icann.org>
> To: "Harold J. Feld" <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
> CC: Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, Stuart Lynn <lynn at icann.org>,
> yjpark at myepark.com, amsiat at sdnpben.org.bj, faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe,
> marc at schneiders.org, ermanno at ula.ve, vandrome at renater.fr
>
> Harold,
>
> The following message is being posted on the ICANN web site today.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Louis Touton
> ==========================
> Harold J. Feld
> Media Access Project
>
> Dear Mr. Feld:
>
> I have received and reviewed your notification of 3 September 2002
> regarding your discovery of a conflict of interest that you feel makes
> it inappropriate for you to continue to serve on the Non Commercial
> Domain Name Holders Constituency (NCDNHC) evaluation committee for the
> .org applications, and your desire to resign immediately from the committee.
>
> At the outset, let me express my deep respect for the professional
> manner in which you have addressed this discovery. Coming forward
> immediately upon discovery of the circumstances surely carries
> considerable embarrassment for you, and I commend you for making ethical
> considerations your paramount guiding principle. I also greatly
> appreciate your candor in responding to my further inquiries regarding
> the circumstances.
>
> You have served as co-chair, with Milton Mueller, of the NCDNHC
> evaluation committee (referred to in the preliminary staff report as the
> "Usage Evaluation Team"). The committee was divided into three subgroups
> according to the three usage criteria; your personal involvement was
> directed at criterion 5 (responsiveness and governance). Although as a
> co-chair you otherwise would have been involved in the process of
> combining the three criteria scores, in fact you were not because you
> were on vacation at the time.
>
> One of the .org proposals, submitted by RegisterORGanization, proposes
> to distribute US$2,500,000 between two foundations to seed the growth of
> a .org community through technology capacity building, bridging the
> digital divide, policy education and advocacy, and technology
> innovation. The two organizations proposed by RegisterORGanization were
> the Benton Foundation and the Open Society Institute's (OSI) Information
> Program. On 3 September 2002, you realized that the Open Society
> Initiative in fact is one of Media Access Project's funders (at the
> level of approximately US$125,000 per year). Previously, you had
> understood (understandably, based on my evaluation of the circumstances)
> that the OSI mentioned in RegisterORGanization's proposal was a distinct
> organization from the one that provides funding to the Media Access Project.
>
> When you discovered the connection, you immediately alerted me of the
> circumstances.
>
> As I have noted on several occasions previously (including in connection
> with your request for advice about the Benton Foundation), because the
> DNSO (including its constituencies) is primarily an advisory (rather
> than decision-making) body that is specifically intended to be a forum
> where involved participants formulate bottom-up advice to ICANN, it is
> to be expected that the participants will have material interests on
> matters regarding which they give advice. Prohibiting DNSO participants
> with interests in particular matters from giving their views would
> destroy much of the utility of the DNSO's advice. Accordingly, there is
> no conflict-of-interest requirement that a DNSO participant not
> participate in development of recommendations or advice to the Board
> that may have effects on the participant's interests. The prevailing
> requirement, instead, is clear notification to all involved of the
> nature of the participant's interests.
>
> Although your continuing on the Usage Evaluation Team - with full
> disclosure - would not violate any conflict-of-interest requirements, it
> is my opinion that your decision to resign from the committee is
> appropriate because failing to do so would impair the reliability of the
> final evaluation report of the team. This is because it would be
> extremely difficult for you to ignore the financial interest you now
> realize is present in making further assessments as a member of the
> evaluation team. The result of your continued involvement would be to
> call into question the objectivity of the Usage Evaluation Team's
> advice, at least as to criterion 5.
>
> I have reviewed the draft evaluation report's discussion regarding
> criterion 5 (responsiveness and governance) to assess preliminarily
> whether there is any indication of bias in favor of
> RegisterORGanization. (One would not expect such bias, of course, since
> at the time you were unaware of the relationship between Media Access
> Project and one of the benefactors of the RegisterORGanization
> proposal.) The draft report contains the following ranking and scores
> for the eleven proposals:
>
>     1. Unity 27.25
>     2. GNR 26.75
>     3. ISOC 21.75
>     4. DotOrg Foundation 20.50
>     5. UIA 16.75
>     6. IMS/ISC 14.00
>     7. Neustar 12.75
>     8. Register Org 11.75
>     9. Switch 8.00
>     10. .Org Foundation 5.00
>     11. Organic Names 0.00
>
> The summary of the basis for the RegisterORGanization evaluation on
> responsiveness and governance reads as follows:
>
>     Rank 8: RegisterORG
>
>     RegisterORG offers has partnered with the Benton Foundation and the
>     Open Society Institute - two non-profits well known for extensive
>     international work. It has committed substantial resources, $2.5
>     million dollars, so that these organizations may develop input from
>     the noncommercial community and facilitate noncommercial community
>     involvement with .org.
>
>     Ultimately, however, RegiserORG retains total control and may ignore
>     any input generated through its noncommercial partners. Neither
>     RegisterORG nor its noncommercial partners has detailed any plan for
>     outreach. Therefore it received a Low rating in the Input/governance
>     cell. RegisterORG has no relationship with the noncommercial
>     community, except via its partnership with Benton and OSI. The
>     extensive relationships of OSI and Benton and the commitment of
>     resources cannot entirely compensate for the lack of detail in the
>     plan, particularly where Benton and OSI appear to be more in a
>     consulting relationship than a true partnership. The Committee
>     therefore gave this bid a "Moderate" rating in its relationship to the
>     community. RegisterORG has participated on the public forum and
>     responded to the questions of the NCDNHC, receiving a High rating in
>     that area.
>
>     The bidder has proposed no new services or good works projects, beyond
>     supporting Benton and OSI. The bidder proposes no relationship with
>     the NCDNHC, and has not offered to facilitate participation of
>     noncommercial entities in ICANN.
>
> Based on a preliminary review of the report, there is no indication that
> any interest you have biased the report in favor of
> RegisterORGanization. Nonetheless, to confirm the absence of bias, the
> process followed and conclusions reached by the responsiveness and
> governance subgroup evaluation should undergo an audit by persons not
> involved in the process to date. ICANN will undertake this audit as part
> of its final review of the NCDNHC evaluation.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Louis Touton
> General Counsel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>