[ga] Non-Disclosure of Vested Interests

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

> At 12:16 AM 4/14/2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >On Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:51 AM (AEST) Dave Crocker
> ><dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I would like you to show where I have denied an affiliation that
> > actually existed.
> >
> >C'mon, David.  You never denied any affiliation or vested inteest.
> >You simply refused to answer the question !!!

On Saturday, April 14, 2001 5:50 PM (AEST), Dave Crocker wrote:

> When you impose a requirement that everyone who participates must document
> any possible conflict of interest, or source of bias, THEN it will perhaps
> be appropriate to discuss a particular participant's affiliations.


Hi David

That'd fine.  As I said at the time, if you don't want to disclose, or deny,
that
you are a hired gun that's fine by me.  I just wouldn't expect members of this
list to treat your PR motivated statements with much gravity or respect.

However, I do believe that the US may be particularly weak in relation to
disclosing "conflicts of interest".  In fairness, such conflicts should not only
be disclosed during the debate but the person concerned should excuse
themselves from that debate.

That is why you see directors and other officials going outside of the room
while an issue affecting them, such as their salary, or terms of emplyment, is
discussed.

Let's say you were the executive officer of an advertising agency with an
account, say a bank, which invited you to be on the Board.  Would you expect to
sit in the Board room whilst a renewal of that contract was being discussed?  Or
to put your view point during the debate leading up to the decision?

I'd suggest that the other directors would want you out of the room so they
could speak freely in your absence.  As that's not the case here in the General
Assembly, then we do need to think about some rules for you, and everybody else,
to follow.

> Absent that consistent policy, it's really rather unfortunate that those
> who claim so much interest in a question are too lazy to do any work to get
> it answered through trivial means, other than creating a distraction in a
> public forum:
>
>          <http://www.brandenburg.com/brandenwork.html#clients>
>
> The entry has been there since the beginning of the relationship.

I didn't know we had a relationship, David.  In fact I deny that we have one
except that I wrote the following:

On Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:44 AM (AEST)
To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Ardent Admirers of ICANN

> So the question must be asked.  Why no simple denial?
<snip>
> If not paid by ICANN, the following statement would be quite appropriate:
>
>       The views that I express are independently formed without
>       bias or conflict of interest.  I do not receive any form of benefit
>       from ICANN or any related organisation whether in the form of
>       salary, fees, gifts or expenses.  Any suggestion to a contrary
>       effect is, and always has been, quite false.
>
> That would at least clear the air just a little.

According to your sorce code, the site was last updated in October.  I asked my
question about your conflict of interests, on NetSol's 'Domain Policy, in early
December 2000.  I'm not sure when I joined that list but I can trace my postings
back to early May 2000.  I've been actively involved since January 2000.

Now I can assert, without proof, that I checked your website before October last
year.  In fact I can say with some certainty that your present site -- which
includes limited disclosure -- is an improvement.

I can also say that it is not up to each one of 200 or so members of this forum
to have to dig around the websites of each of the rest of the 200 or so members
of this forum (that's if they even have a website) searching for possible
disclosures of conflicts of interest.

Even if I had  done that between May and October, which I assert, how often
should I repeat the exercise just to see if their have been any changes in a
website that you might not have even got.

> sigh.

Exactly.

> ps.  And, by the way, congratulations on beginning your reign in such an
> auspicious fashion.

I wouldn't expect any goodwill from you, David.




--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html