[council] Conflicts of Interest

[Bret Fausett]

I think Ross' statement is mostly right. In the GNSO, we should be 
focused on transparency, not conflicts. "Self-regulation" places 
interested organizations directly in the path of GNSO policy 
recommendations. This was a matter of design. Given the current 
structure of the GNSO Council, I fully expect the constituency-elected 
representatives of the GNSO to vote according to the self-interests of 
the organizations that elected them (and liaisons such as myself will 
provide input based on the same set of self-interests). Only the 
Nominating Committee-appointed members are here to represent the wider 
public interest. I also expect that each constituency will have a 
mechanism for determining whether its elected representatives have some 
private interest that might be in conflict with the constituency's 
interests. Even for the Nominating Committee elected representatives, I 
believe there are vetting procedures in place to make sure that no 
private interests would sway their votes. I am happy for us to have a 
formal policy, but I suspect that much of the vetting of conflicts is 
already done at the constituency and NomComm-level.

           Bret


Ross Rader wrote:

> However, you should note that I have continuously used the term 
> "statement of interest" and not "conflict of interest". The former is 
> simple an enumeration of those interests which may affect my judgment 
> as it relates to particular issues. The second is a situation in which 
> a trusted individual's private interests unduly benefit from their 
> public actions - essentially a betrayal of the public trust.
>