[ncdnhc-discuss] PROPOSED RESOLUTION: NEUTRALITY OF STAFF AND COUNSEL

[KathrynKL at aol.com]

Adam (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote:
<<Key fault of the Evolution and Reform Committee is that they have not 
considered the role of staff and counsel. Like wondering why Enron 
failed without looking at Arthur Andersen.
Anyway, could you explain [proposed resolution text]
>The ICANN Board should take immediate steps to adopt a policy
>which requires that no staff or counsel of ICANN who is engaged in policy
>or legal recommendations or reports shall directly or indirectly represent 
(as
>a legal matter) or directly or indirectly benefit (as a financial matter) 
from
>individuals or entities who participate in any of the ICANN constituencies
>or in any ICANN process.
>>

Adam:
I've noticed that Hans Klein has not had a chance to respond to this 
important email.  I hope you don't mind if I take a stab... As you point out, 
the Reform Committee does not address issues of staff and counsel.  This is a 
major oversight because staff and counsel play such a critical role in the 
ICANN process.  

Staff and counsel generally do the vast majority of the research, analysis, 
interaction with the public via comments, presentation to the Board, and 
recommendations for final action.  The .ORG process was a good example of 
this process.  Ultimately, the staff and counsel made the final, single, 
recommendation to the Board.  

Despite this broad authority, the ICANN conflicts of interest policy does not 
apply to staff and counsel.  It applies to Board members, officers (such as 
Stuart Lynn) and supporting organization leaders, but not to ICANN's own 
counsel (including general counsel) or senior staff. 

What the resolution says in plain English is that the same rules must apply 
across the Board - to senior staff, to senior counsel, to officers and to 
Board members.  If you are being paid, or someone in your company is being 
paid, by an individual or entity who have a vested interested in the outcome 
of an ICANN process, you shouldn't be the person advising the ICANN Board 
about it.  It is a matter of basic fairness.  regards, kathy (kleiman, 
acm-igp)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20021012/8a01ab5d/attachment-0001.html>