NCDNHC - organizational conflict of interests. (Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN Board Solicits Input from NCC on .org Redelegation)

[Thomas Roessler]

On 2002-07-09 17:21:59 -0400, t byfield wrote:

>it'll be amusing to watch ICANN's diligent staffers twist their  
>rhetoric into n-dimensional klein pretzels in an effort to justify 
>the rigorous application of COI policies to the NCDNHC across the  
>board while ignoring blokzijl's specific issues -- to say nothing  
>of the nearly categorical COI issues posed by ISOC. i wish them  
>the best of luck.

The ISOC proposal will indeed produce all kinds of interesting  
conflicts.  But that hasn't much to do with the NCDNHC's specific  
situation.


On 2002-07-09 17:36:09 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:

>>>> Thomas Roessler <roessler at does-not-exist.org> 07/09/02 05:06PM >>>
>> - To what extent would member organizations of the NCDNHC profit  
>>   from the suggestions in the individual proposals? (Besides  
>>   "non-profits" profting generically from the proposal, of course.)

>Harold made it clear that any member organization associated with 
>a bid will not be part of the evaluation team. 

In order to have a non-generical benefit from a specific proposal,  
an organization does not need to be associated with that proposal. 
This is in fact demonstrated by the GNR proposal.

>Whether the travel assistance proposed by GNR is "better" or  
>"worse" as a form of support than what is proposed by other  
>applicants is quite an open question. 

It's a question which should not be answered by the NCDNHC.

>The idea that we cannot evaluate that proposal makes absolutely no 
>sense.

The NCDNHC is, basically, broke (at least, it can't pay its bills to 
the DNSO).  There has been no travel funding for the Bucharest  
meetings.  

Now, GNR offers travel scholarships for non-commercial entities (C  
38.3.4, bullet point 4; C35), and suggests a steering committee  
which is supposed to involve the NCDNHC: "The ".org Steering  
Committee" (OSC) will be established as a liaison between the .org  
registry and the non-commercial constituency of ICANN [...] The OSC  
will include the leadership of the ICANN's non-commercial  
constituency and the .org registry, as well as from the .orgcentre  
and the Causeway Community Foundation." (C35)

Even if the NCDNHC is not "associated" with the bid, it would  
clearly benefit from it.  Combine this with the constituency's  
chronical lack of funding, and you have a perfect example for a  
conflict of interests situation: If the NCDNHC team recommends the  
kind of "responsiveness to the noncommercial internet user  
community" suggested by GNR, this will be called self-interested.   
If the NCDNHC doesn't recommend it, chilling effects of possible  
conflicts of interest may be quoted.  In either case, the  
recommendation could be plausibly attacked as not being objective.

(This isn't made easier by the rather fuzzy criteria the NCDNHC  
will have to cover...)
-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler at does-not-exist.org>