[ncdnhc-discuss] Board conflict of interest on .org

[Barbara Simons]

I agree that it would be very useful to hear directly from Mr.
Blokzijl.  There appears to be consensus that Mrs. Blokzijl worked for
NeuLevel and that she no longer works there.  Jonathan Weinberg, whose legal
credentials are beyond dispute - although saying that something is beyond
dispute is taken by some folks on this list as a challenge - has stated
that:

"In this case, it seems plain that Rob has a "financial interest,"
as defined by the rules, in ICANN decisions directly affecting
Neulevel.  Barring unexpected factual developments (all I really know is
that Lynn identified herself as a Neulevel employee at recent RIPE and
ICANN meetings), it seems to me, further, that the interest is material.  I
can imagine, OTOH, a person arguing that that the interest is *not*
"material."  So long as reasonable people can differ, the director should
place the matter before the disinterested members of the conflicts
committee for their judgment."

Given the importance of the dot org decision to the user community in
general (those folks who ICANN is supposed to be serving) and to this list
in particular, I agree with Marc that the time has come for Mr. Blokzijl to
respond to the questions that have been raised in these recent discussions.
In addition, I have some questions of my own, to which I would appreciate
receiving answers.  Questions 1 and 2 are really really easy, since the
answer is either yes or no in both cases.  Maybe Dave or Alejandro could
enlighten us, since they appear to know a great deal about the situation.
Of course I would far prefer hearing from Mr. Blokzijl himself.

1.  Did Mr. Blokzijl offer to recuse himself from any discussions relating
to dot org?

2.  Did he use the appropriate channels to inform the ICANN Board of a
potential (notice the word potential, as opposed to actual) conflict of
interest?

3.  If the answer to either of these questions is no, then why did he either
not recuse himself or not inform the Board of a potential conflict of
interest?  There may be a very legitimate explanation, in which case we can
terminate this discussion.

Regards,
Barbara

On 5/17/02 10:11 AM, "Marc Schneiders" <marc at fuchsia.bijt.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 May 2002, at 09:18 [=GMT-0700], Dave Crocker wrote:
>> At 06:10 PM 5/17/2002 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
>>> It seems you know more than most of us. Why don't you give us the full
>>> facts. It seems ICANN officials remain silent so far, and the weekend is
>>> approaching. We would all like to sleep better the coming nights.
>> 
>> You have the wrong perspective on who is responsible for providing
>> information.
> 
> You have the wrong perspective on the topic. It is about trust. Who is
> responsible for that?
> 
>> Why don't the people claiming misdeeds a) get their facts right, and b)
>> pursue the matter in a constructive and respectful manner?
> 
> I think I did not make any claims, nor showed disrespect to my fellow
> countryman or his wife. I want their names cleared completely. Why don't
> you do, if you can? Come to think of it, why don't they?
> 
>> It is not reasonable to throw around accusations and them claim that it is
>> the burden of others to prove them wrong.
> 
> It is much more reasonable, indeed, to play a game on mailinglists, as you
> seem to do. More fun than solving lack of trust, esp. when that seems
> impossible.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>