RE: [gnso-osc-ops] SOI/DOI Procedures: Now Section 5

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Members,

 

I am good to go with the SOI/DOI document as submitted by Ken.  For my part
this can be sent to the OSC.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:11 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] SOI/DOI Procedures: Now Section 5

 

GCOT Members:

 

Although not specifically asked to provide this service, after reading the
document several times, I noticed a number of areas that I thought could be
improved.  I took the liberty of editing many sections to enhance clarity
according to my understanding of the GCOT's intent with respect to each
section as well as the document's overall flow and integrity.  

 

Although I recommend that team members read this entire version carefully
and critically, I have also itemized below the substantive edits that I made
to the text:   

*        All sections are now renumbered and formatted to be consistent with
the GNSO Operating Procedures.  I am recommending that this material be
inserted as Section 5-Statements of Interest and Disclosures of Interest.
You will note that I added many sub-section and paragraph headings to
improve readability and ease of reference.   I noticed that there were no
acronyms (e.g. SOI or DOI) used in the document and I did not introduce them
in this version.   It is my opinion that judicious use of abbreviations
might make the text a bit less arduous to read in places, especially since
SOI and DOI appear to be commonly used in the community.  If this matter has
already been considered by the team and decided, please let me know.  

*        5.1 Definitions:  minor wording changes to improve clarity, e.g.
added "written statement" to both SOI and DOI; changed "direct or indirect"
to "direct and indirect."  

*        5.2.1 Purpose:  replaced the original text with a new paragraph to
reflect what this policy encompasses.  

*        5.2.2 Compliance:  attached to paragraph (b), I inserted a comment
to inquire of the team what Staff's role is specifically intended to entail.
The current language is confusing, in my opinion, and should be tightened up
or removed.    

*        5.3.1 Timeliness:  rewrote portions for clarity.  Changed the
participation requirement from "acknowledgement of receipt" to "A completed
SOI, updated at least annually, is a precondition."   Rationale:  if a
participant supplied an updated SOI, but did not have acknowledgement of
receipt (does proof have to be provided?), it did not seem reasonable that
he/she would be prohibited from participation.  

*        5.3.2 Electronic Form and Publication:  enhanced the description of
Staff's responsibilities and added an alternative arrangement (e.g. email)
per the discussion in yesterday's teleconference.  

*        5.4.2 Duty to Remind Participants and Speakers:  attempted to clear
up Legal's concern about the polling language in (a) and clarified the
meaning of a "question" so that it does not involve completeness or accuracy
-- covered in 5.5.  

*        5.5.1 Completeness:  modified to make unresolved completeness
issues follow the appeal mechanism in 5.5.3.  

*        5.5.2 Accuracy:  added the perceived omission of a direct or
indirect declaration and made all accuracy concerns subject to the appeal
mechanism.  

*        5.6 Failure to Comply:  new section to address what happens if a
SOI is not submitted at all (5.5.1 -- not previously handled) and, in 5.6.2,
rewrote the material dealing with suspensions so that it applies not only to
the Council, but to any work team/group.  

 

I hope that my suggestions are perceived to have improved the document's
clarity - that was certainly my intent.   Your feedback is welcome and I
would be pleased to make any additional edits/changes that the team deems
appropriate.

 

Ken Bour