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

[Dave Crocker]

Hello KathrynKL,

Saturday, October 12, 2002, 5:18:56 PM, you wrote:

Kac> Adam (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote:
Kac> <<Key fault of the Evolution and Reform Committee is that they have not 
Kac> considered the role of staff and counsel. Like wondering why Enron 
Kac> failed without looking at Arthur Andersen.
Kac> 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 
Kac> (as
>>a legal matter) or directly or indirectly benefit (as a financial matter) 
Kac> from
>>individuals or entities who participate in any of the ICANN constituencies
>>or in any ICANN process.
>>>

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

Kac> Staff and counsel generally do the vast majority of the research,
Kac> analysis,  interaction with the public via comments, presentation to
Kac> the Board, and  recommendations for final action.  The .ORG process was
Kac> a good example of  this process.  Ultimately, the staff and counsel
Kac> Despite this broad authority, the ICANN conflicts of interest policy
Kac> does not apply to staff and counsel.

Oh?  Then please explain:

     <http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar99.htm>.

For example:

2.6 Interested Person. "Interested Person" shall mean either:

    (a) Any person currently being compensated by the Corporation for
    services rendered to it within the previous 12 months, whether as a
    full- or part-time employee, independent contractor, or otherwise, or

    (b) Any person whose family member, as defined in Section 2.2, is
    currently being compensated by the Corporation for services rendered to
    it within the previous 12 months, whether as a full- or part-time
    employee, independent contractor, or otherwise.

d/

ps.  Of the myriad possible issues to worry about, for ICANN, what is the
reason for consuming precious time and energy on this one, at the expense of
other, known, urgent issues?

-----
Dave Crocker