All,

 

In the NCPH meeting in LA, I publically asked Markus to find out what steps were taken by the Board and ICANN senior officers to comply with ICANN’s conflict of interest policy in regards to potential conflicts of interest surrounding Fadi’s involvement in the World Internet Conference. Under ICANN’s conflict of interest policy (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/coi-en) any Board member and senior officer (covered persons) who has “reason to believe that another Covered Person has a Potential Conflict” has a duty to “inform the Office of the General Counsel, including disclosing all relevant facts relating thereto.”

 

Markus promised to convey that request to the Board and provide answers. Marrakech is the most logical place to receive those answers.

 

This is not looking backward. We have a right to know how and to what extent ICANN Board members and senior officers complied with ICANN’s conflict of interest policy. There is no doubt that the Board was aware of the situation in the aftermath and that people were raising questions about possible conflicts of interest. In fact, according to the Washington Internet Daily:

 

ICANN board member Markus Kummer told NCPH members during a separate meeting in early February that Chehadé’s future role in the WIC advisory committee was a topic of “somewhat heated discussion” among members of the ICANN board, a participant said. “The view eventually prevailed that no reactive action should be taken lest China lose face.”

 

So the Board knew about the potential conflict and decided against official action for political reasons. But did they comply with ICANN’s internal policy mandates? If they did not comply, then we need to give serious thought to figuring out why and if ICANN’s conflict of interest policy needs to be strengthened to put in consequences for non-compliance.

 

I would hope that the NCSG would support this request for a formal response from the Board. However, I will be asking about this in Marrakech regardless.

 

Best,

 

Brett

 

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brenden Kuerbis
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 10:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Questions to the Board?

 

 


 

 

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:09 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

+1 to collegial tone and forward looking.

I agree on asking about the GNSO review and the disposition of the garbage report,

 

 

Relatedly, I got wind of a recent "Call For NCPH Working Group on Comprehensive Structural Reform of ICANN", but I don't know much more about it, who's driving it, and its relationship to the above mentioned report that was roundly criticized as flawed. I'd like to know the board's opinion on undertaking structural reform (particularly the NCPH) at this time, its justification for that, and if/how staff is being directed to undertake the effort. 

 

All in a collegial manner, of course.

 

Thanks,

 

Brenden

 

 

CCWG implementation, and the staff/board interface with HR, carefully delineated.

Bill




>

Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org

On Feb 29, 2016, at 04:29, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Tapani
> As a veteran of many of these sessions, I want us to avoid wasting time and just generating animosity.
> I would strongly encourage us to ask questions that:
>       a)  are forward-looking, and give us an opportunity to shape agendas and perceptions on things that are not already finished
>       b)  involve requests for things that the board or staff could actually deliver for us
>
> Any ideas about that?
>
> E.g., is there are request we can make regarding the RDS (Whois) process that would position us better?
> Are there any requests regarding the implementation process for the CCWG recommendations that will help us make sure things don't go off track? Are there any committees that we can ask to be on?
> Can we ask them about the impending GNSO review and whether they agreed with our assessment of the biased Westlake report? Things of that sort
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 6:10 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Questions to the Board?
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> One regular event at ICANN meetings is that we get to meet the Board, talk
>> with them about and ask them whatever we want.
>>
>> The Board would, however, like to know in advance what we're going to ask
>> them, so they could better prepare for it.
>>
>> If you have suggestions for topics for our meeting with the Board in
>> Marrakech, please let me know as soon as possible (feel free to post to the list
>> or me directly, as you prefer).
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen