[ncdnhc-discuss] Proposed NCC resolution on conflicts

[James Love]

Ok Dave.   We can talk about why it is not a good idea for the ICANN staff
to vote in the bodies that elect ICANN board members and play a role in
setting policy for ICANN.

1.  The DNSO and other ICANN (bottom up) governing bodies are supposed to
hold the staff accountable, and keep them from pursuing their personal
agendas.    If the staff don't want an effective NCC, DNSO or board, they
could undermine efforts to make ICANN more accountable.   That is one
conflict one wants to avoid.   The governing bodies are also supposed to
investigate cronyism, corruption, fraud, hiring overpaid consultants or
lawyers, favoritism and a number of other sins, and if the staff wanted to
protect itself from such oversight, it could seek to thwart effective
oversight.

2.  It is a bad idea to have to justify a conflict policy over the character
of one person, because you force people to cast aspersions on Kent, and I
would prefer to avoid that.  Kent is just beginning at ICANN, and he
deserves a chances to see what he can do as a staff.   But that said, it
should be obvious that *no* other ICANN staff members tried to vote in the
DNSO, and I believe if the ICANN staff begins doing so, I won't the only
person raising eyebrows, in or out of the ICANN governance structure.

   Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
To: "James Love" <love at cptech.org>
Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Proposed NCC resolution on conflicts


> At 09:13 AM 2/6/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
> >The DNSO is a governing body for ICANN,
>
> If you check the definition of the word govern, you will discover that the
> word is factually incorrect as a description of the DNSO.
>
>
> >and the NCDNHC was created to
> >represent the interests of non-commerical domain name holders, in the
> >ICANN governance structure.  In order to avoid the appearance of
> >conflicts of interest,
>
> I note that there has not yet been any commentary about the specific
> reality of conflict of interest.
>
> On the assumption that the concern for conflict of interest has something
> to do with real problems that might occur -- rather than simply being a
> vacuous exercise in purity -- then it is important to be careful in making
> rules about it.
>
>
> >1.   They are or have been full or part time employee of ICANN within
> >the past 12 months.
> >...
>
>
> What damage is caused by having such a person be a member of this
constituency?
>
>
> When you have made a clear and substantial case that you are preventing a
> real problem, then there will be some legitimacy to having such a rule.
>
> Without such careful explanation, this is merely a targeted attack on Kent
> Crispin.
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464
>