Palage Resigns from ICANN Board
Date: Wednesday April 05 2006, @08:17AM
Topic: Board of Directors
According to a letter dated April 3, 2006, forwarded to me by a reliable registrar, Michael Palage resigned from the ICANN Board, effective two days ago, Monday. Palage's term was due to run until June 2008.
I have not been able to confirm this:
I will update this post when I know more.
- So far this doesn't appear to be reflected on the ICANN site which still lists him as a member of the Board of Directors
- As of this writing, the archive of the GNSO Council Mailing list, which says it was last updated on 2006 Apr 05, contains no entries dated after March 26, 2006, even though this message was copied to that list. (But then again, the GNSO hates cross-posting.)
- I called ICANN at 9:45 AM California time and was told that there was no one in the office I could speak to about this. I was directed to leave voice mail for the press office, which I did.
- I also left voice mail at Mr. Palage's office in Florida, but haven't heard back yet
[Update: 04/05 17:10 GMT by Michael: I now have confirmation from another reliable source.]
[Update: 04/05 22:33 GMT by Michael: - I've spoken to Michael Palage and he confirms the story. ICANN never called me back. (Some press office, huh?)]
Here's the text of the resignation letter forwarded to me:
From: firstname.lastname@example.orgThere has always been a major tension between the corporatist design of ICANN (in which conflicts of interest are a design feature, not but) and the US-style idea of preventing conflicts of interest. In the past ICANN has rarely enforce its conflict rules, and at least in some cases even when Directors announced they would not vote on an issue they took part in its consideration.
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:59 AM
Cc: John Jeffrey; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: [registrars] FYI
Dear GNSO Council,
Effective immediately, I hereby resign from the ICANN Board of Directors.
What I would now like to do now is briefly explain the basis for my decision
so that there is no speculation or conjecture.
Over the past year I have thought about resigning from the ICANN Board.
This is a decision which I had shared privately with a number of people
including some of my fellow directors. Although I came to the ICANN Board
with a number of ties to the industry based upon my consulting arrangements
with various registration authorities, over the past year it has become
increasingly difficult for me to do the best job that this organization
deserves because of my various professional relationships.
This was something that was further reinforced during the Board's Conflict
Committee Meeting which I participated in last week.
As I look ahead at a number of the challenges that this organization faces,
I feel that I can best contribute by going back to the "bottom"
in the bottom up consensus process. This decision has been made easier
because of some of the change which is currently taking place within the
ICANN Board. Although the community, particularly the GNSO, may question
some of the recent decisions of the Board, I can give you my word that
things are slowly changing in the right direction. Moreover, if I did not
believe in the long term health of this organization, I would not continue
my involvement in it. In the future please look to the IP Constituency,
Registrar, Registry and Business constituencies for my continued involvement
within the GNSO, as well as the ALAC if they accept my offer to help out.
As this body considers selecting my replacement, I urge it to consider the
very important crossroads at which ICANN stands. In my opinion there are
very few people that have the ability to step in and make the necessary
impact that the ICANN stakeholder community deserves.
In light of ICANN's history of going easy on conflicts issues -- in part explained by differing national ideas of how conflicts should be managed -- I'm uncertain what to make of this (assuming it's real). Does this signal an awakening in ICANN's conflict policy, or is it just that Mr. Palage, had his finger in so many different ICANN-related activities, instead of the usual concentration in one industry? Or could it be retaliation by ICANN insiders for his opposition the the majority's views on issues like the Verisign deal? Or was it just no fun being a director any more? Or something else entirely?
My guess is that we should take this at face value, although it's odd that the conflict issues should arise now rather than when Mr. Palage took office. One thing is clear: the end of the day, it still seems like we knew more about the Kremlin's inner workings....
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.