RE: [registrars] Conflict of Interest Declaration

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Ross,

I am not saying that anyone would be dishonest, and I apologize if you
inferred it as such. However, registrars have in the past had a difference
of opinion on some rather unambiguous terms :-)

I agree witch hunts are a waste of time. As you recall, I have always been
against the provision from its original proposal because I thought it would
act to prevent otherwise qualified candidates from serving in a leadership
role for the registrar constituency. However, it is in the by-laws so it has
to be complied with.

As you may recall there were several people that defined rather broadly my
work with Afilias. So broadly that I was basically precluded from running
for re-election. I am just trying to make sure that an equal standard is
applied for all potential candidates.

Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 5:07 PM
> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'Elana Broitman'; wessorh@ar.com; 'Registrars
> List'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Conflict of Interest Declaration
>
>
> > This clarification would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Mike - the actual requirement is this:
>
> 4.6.1. Any person nominated to be an Elected Member must declare
> potential conflicts of interest as follows:
> 4.6.1.1. to the effect that such person has not been in possession of
> any Registry Proprietary or Sensitive Information during the 12 months
> prior to the announcement of any election that they have been nominated
> as a candidate in; and
>
> Registry Proprietary and Registry Sensitive are both defined in the
> relevant Registry agreements and are based on honest self-disclosure (ie
> - a) we can all basically trust each other despite competitive
> disagreements from time to time and b) that witch-hunts are a waste of
> time).
>
> Lastly, I'd also like to second Rob's nomination (or backup nominate him
> if there are concerns around proper standing in relation to clause
> 4.3.3).
>
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 4:52 PM
> > To: Elana Broitman; wessorh@ar.com; Registrars List
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Conflict of Interest Declaration
> >
> >
> > Elana:
> >
> > I believe the definition of proprietary information that was discussed
> > during the GNR debate was broadly defined to include
> > registrar market share,
> > financial terms, etc. Simply put that information disclosed between a
> > registrar and registry and not generally available to a third
> > party, and
> > therefore most likely subject to a NDA. So it is my
> > understanding that under
> > your declaration while employed at RegistryPro you never had
> > access to any
> > documents regarding other registrars' market share within
> > these respective
> > ccTLDs, finacial terms and/or conditions, etc?
> >
> > This clarification would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Elana Broitman
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:43 PM
> > > To: wessorh@ar.com; Registrars List
> > > Subject: [registrars] Conflict of Interest Declaration
> > >
> > >
> > > 	According to section 4.6 of the new bylaws, I am hereby
> > > filing a potential Conflict of Interest.declararation prior to
> > > the commencement of the election process.
> > >
> > > 			One requirement is to announce that I have
> > > "not been in possession of any Registry Proprietary or Sensitive
> > > Information during the 12 months prior to the announcement of any
> > > election."  Although I had worked on the RegistryPro agreements
> > > with ICANN in 2000 to mid-2001, I have not worked for the .pro
> > > registry in any manner since then.   Additionally last May to
> > > September, I worked on Register.com's Registry Advantage
> > > division, which supplied back end services to ccTLD registries.
> > > In that position, I did not have access to Registry Proprietary
> > > or Sensitive Information, nor did I deal with any gTLD matters.
> > >
> > > 			Another requirement is to disclose any
> > > conflict of interest, including contracts of employment or
> > > personal services to a Member, any member of another ICANN
> > > Constituency, or other Observer to the Constituency.  Such
> > > positions shall include, but not be limited to:  officer,
> > > director, consultant, or employee."  I am Director of Policy for
> > > Register.com, a member of the constituency.  Prior to accepting
> > > the nomination for the Constituency Chair, I made sure that
> > > Register.com would accept my taking on the position and its
> > > responsibility for fair, transparent representation of the
> > > constituency, rather than any one member, in this role.  I would
> > > clearly separate my work for the company from my duties as Chair
> > > and clearly segregate and label my communications and actions, to
> > > avoid any confusion or appearance of conflict.  For example, in
> > > chairing meetings or calls of the constituency or representing it
> > > at ICANN or other similar venues, I would not represent
> > > Register.com, but only t!
> > > he constituency.
> > >
> > >
> > > Elana Broitman
> > > Register.com
> > > 575 Eighth Avenue
> > > New York, NY 10018
> > > Phone (212) 798-9215
> > > Fax   (212) 629-9309
> > > ebroitman@register.com
> > >
> > >
> > > I've stopped 589 spam messages. You can too!
> > > Get your free, safe spam protection at
> > http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsigs/
> >
> >
>