RE: [council] Dealing with conflicts
The difference in the vote in question and what Philip puts forward below is that some potentially ex-Councilors may be voting on personally receiving payment for travel to Seoul. That is not the same as appointed/elected Councilors voting as representatives of their constituencies on policy issues that affect that constituency as a whole.
If the vote in question was about funding Councilors, that also may be different. But it is about funding ex-Councilors and IMO that creates a personal benefit to an individual. I know there is the issue of timing as Kristina pointed out. There likely isn't an easy answer, which is why I believe we should not be voting on this at all.
I would also request that Staff take up this issue with Kevin and let us know if we are just wasting our time. If a consensus or a majority of Councilors/ex-Councilors is not going to sway ICANN to increase funding then perhaps we can all be saved from spending more time on an already lost cause.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Dealing with conflicts
From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, August 14, 2009 7:35 am
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I will gladly abstain from a vote related to a conflict on travel if I hear an
undertaking from the contract parties they will cease to vote on all future
issues that may affect their own contracts.