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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 

 

 

 


________________________________

        Von: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] 
Im Auftrag von Ron Andruff
        Gesendet: Montag, 1. März 2010 23:43
        An: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] SOI/DOI Procedures: Now Section 5
        
        

        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