[governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !!

[McTim]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Gideon <gideonrop at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>          It seems however that you have tried to damage the reputation of
> several:
>
> I am sure if any of the facts contained is not true, anyone of them can sue
> DCA, and DCA can defend its statement very well.   BTW, the Ombudsman's
> reference was  specific to the complaint made to him and the arguments DCA
> got with Mike Silber and that was placed in public domain and not the no
> campaigns as you would like it to be.

I offered the "No campaigns" as evidence of your combative attitude,
not in context
of the allegation you made against the 2 directors.


  I suppose you were also in their
> meeting?


There is no indication there was a meeting between the Ombudsman and
the 2 directors.


>
> The point is that Mike is on the Board Director of ZADNA who also endorsed
> UNIFORUM application and for him not to recuse himself on .africa and think
> he is not conflicted is not appropriate.  Just because the ICANN Ombudsman
> exonerated them does not mean DCA is wrong or does not have a legitimate
> complaint.  That would be a wrong calculation.

Ombudsman's report says:

"However it is clearly apparent when the records are examined, that
the 2 board members have not participated in any decision-making about
.africa, and indeed there has been little discussion other than at a
higher level about the program in general. It is in my view premature
to consider whether there can even be apparent bias, because it is too
remote to link the suggested connections with the very generic
discussions which have taken place, and in addition, where the actual
decisions about the applications are still some distance from being
made."

>
> I recall in ICANN Prague in one of the meetings that discussed COI,  Chris
> Disppain got up in front of every body and said the unbelievable " Yes I am
> conflicted and so what, what are you going to do about it".   It simply
> means the COIs are not being taken seriously at ICANN especially at the
> Board level period.

But they are being taken seriously;
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15may12-en.htm


 However the Ombudsman has recommended for it to be
> taken seriously in the future,  that is why I said the matter we brought to
> the Ombudsman is still unsettled for DCA.
>
> I hope this helps, but it is not fair you keep misrepresenting DCA for its
> stand.
> Your position with our opponents from the beginning is well known

I wasn't aware I had a position with them.

for the record, I have no financial or other interest in any new gTLD bid!

, and so
> there may be no point to continue to defend our position from your views.

My view, which I have maintained for some time, is that organizations
involved in the collaboration,
coordination and communication around CIRs do so in a civil manner.
That has always been my
objection to the way DCA operates.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t