<div><font face="">I agree with your thoughts Bret and definitly with Ross. </font><font face="">Transparency is the way we should go. </font></div>
<div><font face=""></font> </div>
<div><font face="">However, </font><font face="">I believe that 'Transparency' is an over sighting function over something, therefore I suggest that we ask these questions as we build our road map over transparency:</font>
</div>
<div> </div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="">'what' are we over sighting i.e conflict of interest, issues of disclosure ?</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="">'who" we are also protecting, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>i.e public interest, constituency etc…</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="">'why" are we doing it, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>i.e to protect interest, to preserve confidence. .etc. </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face=""> </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="">If I am to understand what we are doing, within GNSO council, <strong>is our concern about our activities with the constituencies and the apparent conflicts that might surface with our public service responsibilities?
</strong><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If so, it still is a conflict of interest issue, despite that we say it is not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The challenge we have then, is the difficulties that arise from the generally laudable effort to apply one set of rules (COI) across, yet recognize the
<strong>unique mission and role of ICANN, as an 'interest' based org</strong>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Given this scenario, for lack of COI policy, I would perhaps suggest to develop a "Disclosure and Transparency" guidelines within some sort of
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>framework of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>"Code of Ethics".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face=""> </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="">If it is critical to maintain public confidence that GNSO's ethics standards and practices ensure that all potential conflicts of interest are being managed or eliminated, then I suggest the following consideration within the realm of
<strong>disclosure:</strong></font><font face=""> </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="">Determine <strong>whether and what</strong> type of disclosure should be required:</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="">1) does GNSO<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>know enough to prevent and manage conflicts of interest?</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="">2) do those who would be directly affected by such interests i.e constituencies have the information necessary to make informed choices?
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="">3) does the public have access to sufficient information to maintain public confidence in the integrity of GNSO's work?</font><font face="">
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="">In answering these questions, we need to attempt to balance the needs of GNSO, as well as those of constituencies and the public under the law to an appropriate and reasonable degree of privacy and transparency.
</font></p>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Sophia</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 23/01/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Bret Fausett</b> <<a href="mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro">bfausett@internet.law.pro</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I think Ross' statement is mostly right. In the GNSO, we should be<br>focused on transparency, not conflicts. "Self-regulation" places
<br>interested organizations directly in the path of GNSO policy<br>recommendations. This was a matter of design. Given the current<br>structure of the GNSO Council, I fully expect the constituency-elected<br>representatives of the GNSO to vote according to the self-interests of
<br>the organizations that elected them (and liaisons such as myself will<br>provide input based on the same set of self-interests). Only the<br>Nominating Committee-appointed members are here to represent the wider<br>public interest. I also expect that each constituency will have a
<br>mechanism for determining whether its elected representatives have some<br>private interest that might be in conflict with the constituency's<br>interests. Even for the Nominating Committee elected representatives, I<br>
believe there are vetting procedures in place to make sure that no<br>private interests would sway their votes. I am happy for us to have a<br>formal policy, but I suspect that much of the vetting of conflicts is<br>already done at the constituency and NomComm-level.
<br><br> Bret<br><br><br>Ross Rader wrote:<br><br>> However, you should note that I have continuously used the term<br>> "statement of interest" and not "conflict of interest". The former is
<br>> simple an enumeration of those interests which may affect my judgment<br>> as it relates to particular issues. The second is a situation in which<br>> a trusted individual's private interests unduly benefit from their
<br>> public actions - essentially a betrayal of the public trust.<br>><br><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Sophia Bekele<br>Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598<br>Mob:925-818-0948<br><a href="mailto:sophiabekele@gmail.com">
sophiabekele@gmail.com</a><br>SKYPE: skypesoph<br><a href="http://www.cbsintl.com">www.cbsintl.com</a><br>