[Chapter-delegates] ISOC's great opportunity to inspire ethical policy discussion

[Eric Burger]

What bug are we trying to fix?

Disclosures of conflict of interest, even the appearance of a conflict when none exists, is critically important when dealing with other people’s resources. For example, the Internet Society has a strong conflict of interest policy for Trustees and employees, as we deal with the society’s funds and resources. I am sure ICANN takes those responsibilities seriously as well, which is why they publish what they publish.

Note that the Internet Society’s board does not determine whether someone has a conflict. It is up to that person to decide if they have a conflict. That is for two reasons. The first is the individual knows best whether a conflict exists. The second is one of liability: if someone is evil, it is one thing for them to compromise themselves and get punished when they get caught. It is another if someone evades conflict detection and the society is now liable for not looking deep enough for conflicts. The last thing we need in a volunteer organization is to mount very expensive witch hunts for every new volunteer and before every action.

I would also err on the side of disclosure for participation in deliberative bodies, like Congress or a standards organization. Knowing who pays the bills can help understand the motivations for getting legislation passed or a particular patent-laden technology adopted.

That all said, what does any of this have to do with IGF-USA? By design and charter, IGF-USA may not develop any proscriptive decisions. No money gets spent, now laws get passed, no treaties get signed, no one goes to jail.

So, I ask again, what bug are we trying to fix?

I was not at the steering committee meeting Dave refers to. It sounds like Robert’s Rules were not strictly followed. Was Robert’s Rules the agreed-to operating procedure? If so, then I can understand Dave having an issue with the steering committee, but that is not an issue for the global ISOC delegates’ community, the ITU issues community, or the ISOC-NY board of directors.

On Jul 11, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com> wrote:

> Even
> 
> What I included was from a public website, not confidential. I actually intended just to copy the questions but the data came along and I was in a rush. 
> 
>    It's simply untrue that the issue "has been given due consideration." I made the motion and asked that it be discussed and voted. The chair of the meeting said "We won't do that" and refused discussion.
> 
>    If it was inappropriate for reasons of time, it coould have been handled in about 45 seconds by the chair saying "We don't have time for this. Can I hear a motion to table this?" Which I pointed out to the chair of the meeting in advance.
> 
>    Dave
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> 
> On 11 July 2014 00:52, Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com> wrote:
>  
>     I hope you and others speak up for the motion to request all IGF speakers to do basic disclosure as SOI or whatever other form is appropriate.
> 
> 
> I've said my piece: "Disclosure is nice". And I've given an example of how ICANN manages *voluntary* statements of interest.
> 
> That's the extent of my "speaking up".
> 
> Copying one person's full SoI info to the lists as a response seems neither useful nor appropriate... people here are smart enough to follow the links I provided had they been interested.
> 
> It was not my interest to wade into the internals of the organizing group, Upon seeing the responses I see that this issue has already been given due consideration, and I'm not sure I appreciate getting baited in. In true Canadian fashion I apologize for any difficulty caused by my response. 
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Editor, Fast Net News, Net Policy News and A Wireless Cloud
> Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley, 2002) and Web Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit, 2008)
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140711/311ce09b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140711/311ce09b/attachment.asc>