In a letter dated October 1, 2012, sent to the CEO of ICANN, Fadi Chehadé and the Chairman of the Board, , Dr. Stephen D. Crocker, DotConnectAfrica (DCA) sent a third letter on what it considers to be a “Matter of Conflict of Interest on .AFRICA (DotAfrica) new gTLD Applications regarding Mr. Mike Silber and Mr. Chris Disspain, Members of the ICANN Board and the New gTLD Program Committee’s participation.
“DotConnectAfrica had sent two (2) separate letters dated July 9, 2012 to report a matter of Conflict of Interest on .Africa new gTLD applications regarding Mr. Mike Silber, a member of the ICANN Board from South Africa, and Mr. Chris Disspain, a member of the ICANN Board from Australia.”
“In our letters, we gave a full explanation of the matter, and adduced reasons to justify our fears that Mr. Mike Silber and Mr. Chris Disspain might be deeply conflicted over the DotAfrica (.Africa) gTLD issue, and how this would cause them to be strongly prejudiced against DCA’s application because of their relationship to a competing applicant for DotAfrica (.Africa).”
“We had requested that to avoid any Conflict of Interest, Mr. Mike Silber and Mr. Chris Disspain should recuse themselves from participating in any future Board-level, Executive-level or Committee-level discussions and or decisions regarding any of the .AFRICA (dotAfrica) gTLD application(s) submitted to ICANN.”
“However, to our chagrin and complete bewilderment, we note from information available on the ICANN Web Site that Mr. Mike Silber and Mr. Chris Disspain are freely participating in meetings of the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN.”
“We understand that on 10 April 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program Committee, which is comprised of all voting members of the Board that are not conflicted with respect to the New gTLD Program.”
“According to the report of the preliminary meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee held in Los Angeles, we have noted that Mike Silber and Chris Disspain, both ICANN Directors regarding whom we had previously raised possible Conflict of Interest (COI) concerns to ICANN, had participated in all or part of the meeting. ”
“We are therefore seriously disappointed that nothing was done about the previous letters that we wrote to ICANN regarding Messrs. Mike Silber and Chris Disspain.
“We therefore wish to express our indignation in the strongest terms that despite the earlier communication sent to ICANN, both Mr. Mike Silber and Mr. Chris Disspain are still participating in New gTLD discussions at ICANN, even though we have explained the relationships and affiliations that possibly exist between these ICANN Board members to UniForum ZA Central Registry, a competing applicant for the .Africa new gTLD.”
“Consequently, we would like to seek immediate reassurances from ICANN that both Mr. Mike Silber and Mr. Chris Disspain shall be required to recuse themselves in any ICANN Board-level discussions and decisions regarding .Africa; or DCA shall be forced to seek certain remedies and protect itself from any possible harm to its application by the continuing presence and influence of Mr. Mike Silber and Mr. Chris Disspain on the New gTLD Program Committee.”
If one goes back to the March 15, 2012 ICANN Public Forum transcript, the Chair of ICANN, Steve Crocker, was acknowledged to be in conflict of interest himself (see pages 45-46 and 52-54). Nothing happened to him. DCA shouldn’t hold their breath.
Not Really. Steve Crocker is not on the new GTLD committee , who are making decisions on new gTLDs. See link here: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld
Everyone seem to have recused themselves , given their statement of interests, except these two who are conflicted, direct beneficiary from .africa gTLD. Wonder why?
I’m curious – What connection do Chris Disspain and/or Michael Silber have with the ZACR/AU .africa bid?
Well you should be reading further Calvin, am surprised you will not know ?
It is interesting to note that ICANN have not responded on these matters, perhaps one would say that it’s due to the transitional period.
It is a critical issue that ICANN must handle soonest or at least provide a response so that the dotAfrica application process remains fair and open. Otherwise if the mentioned individuals continue in their positions, there is no doubt that an internal influence is suspect in a process that is expected to be transparent. By acting soon ICANN will exonerate itself from any possible future problems
On the other hand the Chris and Mike should voluntarily find a way to remove themselves from the positions that are conflicted.
Martin – why? What exactly is the conflict here? I’m curious.
It’s like that in life, there are always bad players and bad losers! If we refer to strings submited to this first round, we can note a demand for the string africa (applicant id 1-1243-89583) and another one dotafrica (1-1165-42560). I wonder why write these kinds of articles would hear in a conflict between two entities for africa string that does not exist. I agree that we must avoid conflicts of interest, but for the .Africa, this conflict should not exist. There are many cases that can be used to illustrate the conflict of interest within ICANN and not the .Africa (to differentiate from .DotAfrica)
I’m sure people who have applied for the DotAfrica (as string) knew they had lost in advance the africa!
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en
Dear Karim Attoumani Mohamed,
Your comments are quite irrelevant to the issue even as you have also displayed unwarranted pettiness in your attitude.
First, DCA’s letter to ICANN is about Conflict of Interest. If according to your comments, you already “agree that we must avoid conflicts of interest”, then what is your problem with DCA’s letter to ICANN?
Your attempt to conflate the issue and relate it to the applied-for string name is quite diversionary and aimed entirely at mischief-making in the pursuit of an unknown agenda.
Your thinking that the ‘dotAfrica’ string and ‘.Africa’ string are different gTLD names is borne out of wholesale ignorance. Moreover, you seem to be calling the results of the application for the gTLD strings even though you are not an expert on string similarity. Are you a member of the ICANN Evaluation Panel or do you have friends in the panel that have indicated to you secretly that they would favour your preferred applicant?
If according to you “there are many cases that can be used to illustrate the conflict of interest within ICANN”, then please feel free to cite such cases and bring them to the attention of ICANN and the global public.
Until you do so, you lack the moral standing to comment on DCA’s letter to ICANN regarding matters of conflict of interest.
If there was any substance to these charges, I am sure that ICANN would reply to the letters.
There does not appear to be any substance to the alleged COI on the part of the two Directors, instead it seems that one bidder is looking for a “hook” upon which to sue ICANN to regain the monies they have spent on their mission over the last few years.