ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Public versus private declaration of financial interest

  • To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Public versus private declaration of financial interest
  • From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:58:37 -0500

Bruce, are you suggesting that Glen provide a one time, or occasional email
which all members of the TF would receive, copied to the Council Chair, and
cc'd to ICANN legal staff, where any disclosure of client names would be

Something like what the Board does? 

Secondly, I certainly agree with the need to disclose the client /or any
clients, that are affected by a policy that is being discussed, or voted on.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:34 PM
To: pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: John O. Jeffrey
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Public versus private declaration of financial

Hello All,

Board members currently provide their annual statement of interest to a
Board Conflicts committee rather than publicly declaring all financial

When a Board member is voting or discussing a particular topic, the
Board member would need to declare any interest specific to the issue
and this would be included in the public minutes of the meeting.
Wherever a Board member needs to abstain from voting or discussing they
should provide reasons publicly.

Given that the Council and Task Forces have always been as open and
transparent as possible, I think that members should be as public as
possible in their statement of interest.

However I can also see situations where a member of a task force may
have limitations on doing this.

For example, I work for Melbourne IT, but I would not be able to declare
publicly all Melbourne IT's customers.   Likewise a task force member
that is primarily a consultant, would have difficulties declaring
publicly all their clients, without getting permission from each client
for using their name on a public website.

I suggest that if a consultant (or lawyer working for a legal firm)
feels constrained in listing all their clients that may be related to
ICANN that instead we simply ask the GNSO Secretariat to send a list to
members via email on the basis of confidentiality.   Otherwise we will
have the overheads of appointing conflicts of interest sub-committees

In my "personal" view, the exceptions to the above are where a
representative from a constituency is providing a service for a member
of the GNSO that is not a member of that constituency.  I think this
should be publicly declared.   Likewise if a person is appointed by the
nominating committee, I think they should declare any services they
provide to any other member of the GNSO (or ICANN the corporation).

Also while it may be appropriate to keep a client list private, if an
issue is being discussed that involves a particular client or clients,
this should be publicly declared before discussing or voting on the

Also note that financial interests are not just what you are being paid
today, but also what you have been paid in the last 12 months (e.g
consulting work for ICANN in the past 12 months), or are about to be
paid in the near future (e.g where a fee for success is involved).

Bruce Tonkin

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy