[Chapter-delegates] Message from Internet Society Audit Committee Chair

[Heather West]

Hi Olivier (and others) - thank you for your questions. I attempt to
clarify some aspects of your questions below, but I will note that
discussion and revision of the CoI policy was before I joined the board -
so I can’t speak to the history, only the current state. Other Trustees may
have additional, or different, thoughts to add. I hope that this is helpful.

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 05:39:17PM +0100, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via
Chapter-delegates wrote:

>Dear Heather,

>

>thank you for your kind message and thank you for raising the issue of

>Conflict of Interest Policy with Chapters. This email is meant to share

>my personal comments regarding the policy as it currently stands and to

>question how this was established.

>

>First, how it was established. From your email, it appears that this

>conflict of interest policy was adopted unanimously by the Board of

>Trustees earlier this year - without any formal input from the very

>people affected by the policy, that is the three communities from which

>candidates on the Board of Trustees are drawn.

The Conflict of Interest policy (CoI policy) is a Board policy that governs
the members of the Board of Trustees, not the chapters or other
communities. As mentioned, the CoI policy was revised earlier this year;
Andrew linked some relevant materials.


There are a number of reasons to have a CoI policy - both simply because
it’s an important aspect of board governance, but also because the IRS asks
about the existence of, and process of, a CoI policy. But, again, the
policy applies to the members of the Board in their role as a Trustee.

The current policy was unanimously approved to replace a previous version
of the policy from 2011; as I understand it, clarifications to the 2011
policy were needed. That’s the history that I know right now - but I would
be very surprised if CoI policies have not been in place for most of ISOC’s
existence, given IRS requirements for nonprofits. In the case of current
discussion, there was some disagreement amongst Trustees as to how to
interpret the current policy - that is not ideal. We can clarify based on
learnings from those discussions. We wanted to draw the community's
attention to this while we work out what clarifications to the policy might
be needed.

>  * Why is there a focus on organisations that used to be, in the past,

>    referred to as the I-star organisations, organisations that were

>    viewed as friends, but now appear to be no longer? Why were more

>    "distant" organisations, like ITU, or the IEEE, or ACM not given as

>    an example?

The examples in the CoI policy are only examples ("include, but are not
limited to") - they are intended to be illustrative of the kinds of
organizations that *may* be a conflict of interest. While the current CoI
policy notes these are only examples, there may be a way to make that even
more clear in the policy. I don’t know why those examples were chosen, but
it’s likely because they were notable examples that many Trustees would be
familiar with and thus able to use to think through potential conflicts of
interest - you are correct that both are an important part of the wider
Internet community that we work within, as are the other examples you note.

>  * Why is there a mention of "individuals who are directly involved in

>    the policy development process of these organisations" instead of

>    referring to being in their leadership? There is no difference made

>    between being in the leadership of an organisation and contributing

>    benevolently to a working group.

As I understand it, the CoI policy is intended to ensure that Trustees can
participate in any number of organizations or related activities - we want
to be able to draw Trustees from a wide pool (of course, as elected by
members of the community). However, if a Trustee is part of the direct
policymaking or governance of multiple organizations, then that can create
a conflict of interest - what if a decision would benefit one and be to the
detriment of another? We don’t want to put the Board or our Trustees in
that difficult position. As I understand it, advising other organizations
is not a conflict of interest, but determining policy for an organization
in the same areas of engagement as ISOC creates the potential for problems
(regardless of whether they are formally on a leadership team for that
organization). The CoI policy does also have other examples in the document
- for instance, full members of the IAB or members of the IESG are excluded
from being Trustees due to ISOC's relationship with the IETF.

>  * Why is there an ill-conceived mention of "policy development"

>    relating to IGF? The Internet Governance Forum does not make any

>    policy, it is... a discussion forum - this sentence is embarrassing

>    for ISOC as it appears to point at ignorance of this basic point.

This inclusion seems to create some confusion; I admit that I am less
familiar with the workings of the IGF than some. But it has been noted that
the MAG Chair appears to make policy for the IGF. In any case, the
confusion on this point would seem to merit some clarification that
participation in discussion forums are not conflicts as envisioned by the
CoI policy (as I understand it).

>  * If deciding to open the can of worms, why not open it fully and also

>    include conflict of interests of individuals that work for large

>    corporations that are directly involved in Internet Governance -

>    corporations that could benefit from ISOC's "independent policy

>    views" advocacy on a National or International level? They get paid

>    by these corporations - surely that's a greater conflict of interest

>    than the one of volunteers?

If they were in the "board or leadership" of the organizations you mention,
they would also likely be covered by the first sentence of this section.
Corporations generally do not have formal policy development bodies the way
volunteer organizations do, so the sentence about the policy development
bodies doesn't apply. Depending on the kind of organization, and the role
within the organization, it is possible that someone might be deemed to
have a conflict of interest. I don’t know if that has come up in the past.

>The Conflict of Interest policy, as it currently stands, could prevent a

>lot of very competent people from taking on positions on the ISOC Board

>of Trustees.

The intent of the CoI policy is to be as narrow as possible, while also
ensuring that Trustees are making decisions in the best interest of ISOC.
We agree that being overly restrictive of the activities of potential
Trustees would be a mistake. But, again, it is important not to have a
conflict between any Trustee’s position with ISOC and their formal role
within another organization.

>1. Have a policy that allows all Board members to declare their

>interests publicly, for all to see, on a publicly accessible page, which

>can be updated regularly.

Trustees do declare their potential conflicts on a regular basis, using a
standard form; as Chair of the Audit Committee, I collect and monitor them.
This is another thing that the IRS asks about from a process perspective.
There have been discussions about whether to post these publicly, there has
not been agreement about whether this is always possible.

>2. Have a policy that allow Board members to recuse themselves from

>discussions where their other commitments pose a conflict of Interest

>for this topic only. I understand that one or more members of the Board

>did exactly this during the PIR discussions.

In most cases, the CoI policy calls for the recusal of a Trustee when a
conflict arises. There is a very narrow set of circumstances wherein the
conflict is structural in nature; in this case, the policy instead requires
the person to choose between their role on the Board or within the other
organization, as recusal would not adequately protect ISOC. The goal is to
make these circumstances as rare as possible while remaining responsible,
as Trustees, to ISOC.

>3. Have a policy that allows the ISOC Board of Trustees to be

>accountable to the ISOC Community, the channel for the Internet Society

>to continue to excel in its Mission as listed in

>https://www.internetsociety.org/mission/  - so the Internet Society does

>not risk being used as a lobbying tool for vested interests?

I’m not sure what kind of formal accountability you envision here, but I
think that, generally, what you’re talking about is outside the scope of
the CoI policy discussed here. I will say that I certainly see my role as a
Trustee as furthering the ISOC mission, and working within the Board to
ensure that ISOC remains focused on that mission - so we share a goal in
that.




On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:39 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

> Dear Heather,
>
> thank you for your kind message and thank you for raising the issue of
> Conflict of Interest Policy with Chapters. This email is meant to share my
> personal comments regarding the policy as it currently stands and to
> question how this was established.
>
> First, how it was established. From your email, it appears that this
> conflict of interest policy was adopted unanimously by the Board of
> Trustees earlier this year - without any formal input from the very people
> affected by the policy, that is the three communities from which candidates
> on the Board of Trustees are drawn. Whilst I agree that, in principle, a
> Conflict of Interest policy is needed in any organisation, I wonder what
> was the trigger for this sudden waking of the sleeping dragon after so many
> years where the matter had not been addressed, and there did not appear to
> have been cause for concern. Why were the relevant communities not
> consulted?
>
> Why do I call this a sleeping dragon? Because whilst I agree with you that
> the "Independent Policy View" section needs further review, it's a bit late
> to involve Chapters now that the section's already been passed by the
> Board. Plus, it awakens all sorts of questions, which I'll point out below.
>
> So let's see the two main paragraphs:
>
>
>
>
>
> *Individuals in the board or the leadership of organizations that operate
> in ISOC’s areas of engagement shall not serve as trustees, unless the
> engagement is on behalf of or at the request of ISOC’s Board. Individuals
> who are directly involved in the policy development process of these
> organizations shall not serve as Interested Parties. These organizations
> include, but are not limited to, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers) and the IGF (Internet Governance Forum). Chapters Given
> ISOC’s relation with its chapters, members of the leadership of an ISOC
> chapter, which include th**e chapter’s president and treasurer, shall not
> serve as ISOC trustees*
>
> I have a serious problem with the specific mentioning and therefore
> targeting of ICANN and IGF. This is not only because I am involved as a
> volunteer in these two organisations, but because it unfairly targets the
> involvement of most of our Chapter members in Internet Governance, whether
> at ICANN or IGF - and an overwhelming majority of Chapter members are
> involved as volunteers in these organisations.
>
> * I would go further that their involvement in these organisations create
> the very fabric that the multistakeholder model is built on. Without this,
> there is no multistakeholder model. Is this what the Internet Society
> wants?*
>
>    - Why is there a focus on organisations that used to be, in the past,
>    referred to as the I-star organisations, organisations that were viewed as
>    friends, but now appear to be no longer? Why were more "distant"
>    organisations, like ITU, or the IEEE, or ACM not given as an example?
>    - Why is there a mention of "individuals who are directly involved in
>    the policy development process of these organisations" instead of referring
>    to being in their leadership? There is no difference made between being in
>    the leadership of an organisation and contributing benevolently to a
>    working group.
>    - Why is there an ill-conceived mention of "policy development"
>    relating to IGF? The Internet Governance Forum does not make any policy, it
>    is... a discussion forum - this sentence is embarrassing for ISOC as it
>    appears to point at ignorance of this basic point.
>    - If deciding to open the can of worms, why not open it fully and also
>    include conflict of interests of individuals that work for large
>    corporations that are directly involved in Internet Governance -
>    corporations that could benefit from ISOC's "independent policy views"
>    advocacy on a National or International level? They get paid by these
>    corporations - surely that's a greater conflict of interest than the one of
>    volunteers?
>
> The Conflict of Interest policy, as it currently stands, could prevent a
> lot of very competent people from taking on positions on the ISOC Board of
> Trustees. This blanket ban throws the baby out with the bath water. Worse:
> it is discriminatory towards a specific type of volunteer. Is this really
> what ISOC wants?
>
> Instead of a policy that stops people from taking office altogether, if
> there is a deep concern in the ISOC Board of Trustees that conflicts of
> interest are a strong reality that needs to be addressed, perhaps is it
> time to:
>
> 1. Have a policy that allows all Board members to declare their interests
> publicly, for all to see, on a publicly accessible page, which can be
> updated regularly.
>
> 2. Have a policy that allow Board members to recuse themselves from
> discussions where their other commitments pose a conflict of Interest for
> this topic only. I understand that one or more members of the Board did
> exactly this during the PIR discussions.
>
> 3. Have a policy that allows the ISOC Board of Trustees to be accountable
> to the ISOC Community, the channel for the Internet Society to continue to
> excel in its Mission as listed in https://www.internetsociety.org/mission/
> - so the Internet Society does not risk being used as a lobbying tool for
> vested interests?
>
>
> As I said, these are my personal views. I accept that I might be out of
> line, but my interest here is to safeguard the Internet multistakeholder
> model and when I see a friendly organisation wandering towards fragmenting
> this vulnerable ecosystem into "us against them" amongst its friends, I
> cannot keep my mouth shut.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
>
> Olivier
>
>
>
> On 04/11/2020 01:35, Heather West via Chapter-delegates wrote:
>
>
> As Chair of the Internet Society Audit Committee, I wanted to share an
> update with you.
>
>
> As you may know, the Audit Committee reviews the Conflict of Interest
> forms filed by members of the Board of Trustees and officers of the
> Internet Society to ensure that we are in compliance with our Conflict of
> Interest (“CoI”) policy.
>
> The CoI policy states that members of the Board of Trustees cannot hold a
> position in the policy development process in another organization
> operating in the Internet Society’s areas of engagement, and we are
> evaluating a situation where this restriction may be relevant. One of our
> Trustees has been appointed as a non-voting member to the GSNO Council, the
> Generic Names Supporting Organization – a policy-development body that
> develops and recommends policies relating to generic top-level domains
> (gTLDs) to the ICANN Board.
>
> The Internet Society has a long history of collaborating with our diverse
> community from around the world, and is committed to having vibrant and
> robust global engagement. We work across countries and cultures and seek
> diverse cross-organizational expertise. This makes us stronger—sound
> practices and clear policies are a critical part of that.
>
> We recognize that the expertise of our trustees is also valued by other
> groups. At the same time, our community is best served when board members
> are able to maintain their independence from other organizational interests
> that are in the Internet Society’s areas of engagement.
>
> While our CoI policy was adopted unanimously by the Board of Trustees
> earlier this year, the Board has determined that a section addressing a
> conflict under the “Independent Policy View” section needs further review.
> The Governance Committee will evaluate this section with the goal of
> providing its assessment and recommendations to the Board for further
> discussion.  We anticipate this work will be concluded by the time of our
> next Board of Trustees meeting.
>
> Below is the link to our Conflict of Interest policy on the Internet
> Society website.
> https://www.internetsociety.org/coi-policy/
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Heather West
> Audit Committee, Chair, Internet Society Board of Trustees
>
>
>
> =========== Español ===========
>
> Como presidente del Comité de Auditoría de Internet Society, quería
> compartir una actualización con ustedes.
>
> Como saben, el Comité de Auditoría revisa los formularios de Conflicto de
> Interés presentados por miembros de la Junta Directiva y funcionarios de
> Internet Society para asegurarse de que cumplimos con nuestra política de
> Conflicto de Interés ("CoI").
>
> La política de CoI establece que los miembros de la Junta Directiva no
> pueden ocupar un puesto en el proceso de desarrollo de políticas en otra
> organización que opere en las áreas de participación de Internet Society, y
> estamos evaluando una situación en la que esta restricción puede ser
> relevante. Un integrante de la Junta Directiva ha sido designado como
> miembro sin derecho a voto del Consejo de GSNO, la Organización de Apoyo
> para Nombres Genéricos, un organismo de desarrollo de políticas que
> desarrolla y recomienda políticas relacionadas con los dominios genéricos
> de nivel superior (gTLD) a la Junta de ICANN.
>
> Internet Society tiene un largo historial de colaboración con nuestra
> diversa comunidad de todo el mundo y está comprometida a tener un
> compromiso global vibrante y sólido. Trabajamos en distintos países y
> culturas y buscamos diversos conocimientos especializados entre
> organizaciones. Esto nos hace más fuertes: las prácticas sólidas y las
> políticas claras son una parte fundamental de eso.
>
> Reconocemos que la experiencia de los integrantes de nuestra Junta
> Directiva también es valorada por otros grupos. Al mismo tiempo, se sirve
> mejor a nuestra comunidad cuando los miembros de la Junta pueden mantener
> su independencia de otros intereses organizacionales que se encuentran en
> las áreas de participación de Internet Society.
>
> Si bien nuestra política de CoI fue adoptada por unanimidad por la Junta
> Directiva a principios de este año, la Junta ha determinado que una sección
> que aborda un conflicto en la sección "Opinión de la política
> independiente" necesita más revisión. El Comité de Gobierno evaluará esta
> sección con el objetivo de proporcionar su evaluación y recomendaciones a
> la Junta para su posterior discusión. Anticipamos que este trabajo
> concluirá en el momento de nuestra próxima reunión de la Junta Directiva.
>
> A continuación se muestra el enlace a nuestra política de Conflicto de
> Interés en el sitio web de Internet Society.
>
> https://www.internetsociety.org/coi-policy/
>
> Sinceramente,
>
> Heather West
>
> Presidente, Comité de Auditoría, Junta Directiva de Internet Society
>
> =========== Français ===========
>
> En tant que président du comité d'audit de l'Internet Society, je voudrais
> vous faire part d'une mise à jour.
>
>
> Comme vous le savez peut-être, le comité d'audit examine les formulaires
> de conflit d'intérêt remplis par les membres du conseil d'administration et
> les dirigeants de l'Internet Society afin de s'assurer que nous sommes en
> conformité avec notre politique, en matière de conflit d'intérêt ("CoI").
>
>
> La politique en matière de conflits d'intérêts stipule que les membres du
> conseil d'administration ne peuvent pas occuper de poste dans le processus
> d'élaboration des politiques d'une autre organisation opérant dans les
> domaines d'engagement de l'Internet Society, et nous évaluons actuellement
> une situation dans laquelle cette restriction pourrait s’avérer pertinente.
> L'un de nos administrateurs a été nommé membre sans droit de vote du
> Conseil du GSNO, soit l'Organisation de soutien des noms génériques - un
> organe d'élaboration des politiques qui élabore et recommande au conseil
> d'administration de l'ICANN des politiques relatives aux domaines
> génériques de premier niveau (gTLD).
>
>
> L'Internet Society collabore depuis longtemps avec notre communauté
> diversifiée du monde entier, et s'engage à avoir un engagement mondial
> dynamique et solide. Nous travaillons à travers les pays et les cultures et
> recherchons une expertise transversale diversifiée. Cela nous permet
> d'avoir des pratiques plus solides - et des politiques claires sont un
> élément essentiel dans cette démarche.
>
>
> Nous reconnaissons que l'expertise de nos administrateurs est également
> appréciée par d'autres groupes. En même temps, notre communauté est mieux
> servie lorsque les membres du conseil d'administration sont capables de
> maintenir leur indépendance par rapport aux intérêts d’autres organisations
> qui sont dans les domaines d'engagement de l'Internet Society.
>
>
> Bien que notre politique de CoI ait été adoptée à l'unanimité par le
> conseil d'administration au début de cette année, le conseil a déterminé
> qu'une section traitant d'un conflit dans la section "Independent Policy
> View" doit faire l'objet d'un examen plus approfondi. Le comité de
> gouvernance évaluera cette section dans le but de fournir son évaluation et
> ses recommandations au conseil d'administration pour une discussion plus
> approfondie. Nous prévoyons que ce travail sera terminé d'ici la prochaine
> réunion du conseil d'administration.
>
>
> Vous trouverez ci-dessous le lien vers notre politique en matière de
> conflits d'intérêts sur le site web de l'Internet Society.
>
> https://www.internetsociety.org/coi-policy/
>
>
> Sincèrement,
>
> Heather West
>
> Président du comité d'audit, du conseil d'administration de l'Internet
> Society
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20201105/294f1daa/attachment.htm>