Changes

====Paper 4: Corporate Governance====

====Paper 4: Corporate Governance====

The fourth paper takes on ICANN's lack of transparency in its dealing and rulings, it also offers solutions to problems of ethical neutrality with relation to board members. It is first noted that the work of ICANN's own [[Accountability and Transparency Review Team]] does not offer sufficient answers to the variety of problems at hand. They are particularly concerned about the neutrality of board members given that they can simultaneously work for contracted entities that stand to gain or lose revenue with regards to a given ICANN decision. They subsequently note that board members are free to move directly from their position as a voluntary member of ICANN's board into a paid position with a contracted ICANN entity, such as the high-profile example with former chairman [[Peter Dengate Thrush]]. Thus, they call on the organization to better spell out what constitutes a conflict of interest for board and staff members, to create new mandates to support this definition, to create independent control mechanisms, and to formulate a punishment for breaches of the new rules. They agree with the Accountability and Transparency Review Team that board members should be compensated to reward professionalism and help eliminate any incentives for conflicting one's own interest with that of the organization. The EC concludes by making a number of implementation suggestions related to their recommendations, including advice to the USG to amend the [[IANA]] contract to more forcefully and specifically address conflicts of interest.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/ECPaper3-4.pdf EC Paper 4]</ref>

The fourth paper takes on ICANN's lack of transparency in its dealing and rulings, it also offers solutions to problems of ethical neutrality with relation to board members. It is first noted that the work of ICANN's own [[Accountability and Transparency Review Team]] does not offer sufficient answers to the variety of problems at hand. They are particularly concerned about the neutrality of board members given that they can simultaneously work for contracted entities that stand to gain or lose revenue with regards to a given ICANN decision. They subsequently note that board members are free to move directly from their position as a voluntary member of ICANN's board into a paid position with a contracted ICANN entity, such as the high-profile example with former chairman [[Peter Dengate Thrush]]. Thus, they call on the organization to better spell out what constitutes a conflict of interest for board and staff members, to create new mandates to support this definition, to create independent control mechanisms, to create a mandatory waiting period to prevent exiting members from immediately taking jobs in the industry,  and to formulate a punishment for breaches of the new rules. They agree with the Accountability and Transparency Review Team that board members should be compensated to reward professionalism and help eliminate any incentives for conflicting one's own interest with that of the organization. The EC concludes by making a number of implementation suggestions related to their recommendations, including advice to the USG to amend the [[IANA]] contract to more forcefully and specifically address conflicts of interest.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/ECPaper3-4.pdf EC Paper 4]</ref>

The fourth paper can be read [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/ECPaper3-4.pdf here].

The fourth paper can be read [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/ECPaper3-4.pdf here].

ICANN followers largely agree with the issues raised in this paper. Since many of the EC's suggestions have been made before by others,  it seems that they are only weighing in on a constantly important topic. [[Nigel Roberts]] notes how regrettable the move by [[Peter Dengate Thrush]] was for the organization, and calls on ICANN to address the issues raised in this paper.<ref>[http://nigel.je/ Nigel Roberts' blog, Nigel.je]</ref> One concern raised with this document focuses on tone over content; [[Milton Mueller]] notes that the fact that they are not issuing papers with room for public comments, holding discussions with their European constituents, or officially releasing these documents they are demonstrating their desire to directly manipulate [[ICANN]]'s structure and function.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/ECPaper3-4.pdf InternetGovernance.org/blog]</ref>

ICANN followers largely agree with the issues raised in this paper. Since many of the EC's suggestions have been made before by others,  it seems that they are only weighing in on a constantly important topic. [[Nigel Roberts]] notes how regrettable the move by [[Peter Dengate Thrush]] was for the organization, and calls on ICANN to address the issues raised in this paper.<ref>[http://nigel.je/ Nigel Roberts' blog, Nigel.je]</ref> One concern raised with this document focuses on tone over content; [[Milton Mueller]] notes that the fact that they are not issuing papers with room for public comments, holding discussions with their European constituents, or officially releasing these documents they are demonstrating their desire to directly manipulate [[ICANN]]'s structure and function.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/ECPaper3-4.pdf InternetGovernance.org/blog]</ref> A short time after the EC paper was leaked, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden also called on his government to implement new ethics rules that would prevent future conflicts of interest and close the "revolving door" currently allowed by the [[IANA]] contract.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/senator-calls-for-icann-ethics-controls/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DomainIncite+%28DomainIncite.com%29 Senator calls for ICANN ethics rules, domainincite.com]</ref>

====Paper 5: A More Effective GAC====

====Paper 5: A More Effective GAC====