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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In reading again came up with the following questions.  I am not sure they are 
adequate to delay the further public review, but if not dealt with before, 
would ask that they be put on the list of issues to be dealt with post public 
review.  I realize some of them should have occurred to me earlier, but they 
didn't.

- 
> Relevant Party: An individual who participates as a member of a work team, 
> working group,
> committee member or other such policy development body formed by and under 
> the supervision
> of the GNSO, as well as all elected and appointed members of the GNSO Council.

does this include the liaisons who are ot stricly speaking members?


- re 5.2.2.b instead of managed by the staff, might it be appropriate to say 
administered.  and if that is still too ambiguous we could add a sentence to 
say what administration included like: informing new members of groups on f the 
policies, posting all DOi/SOI and following up on any requests fro the Chairs 
of groups pertaining to this policy.

- re 5.3.3.5 vi 

> benefit from participation in ICANN GNSO
> policy development processes and outcomes? For example, if you are an 
> academic or
> NGO and use your position to advance your ability to participate, this 
> relationship
> should be disclosed in the Statement of Interest 

I am confused by the referents in this:

What position is it referring to - position in ICANN? at the University?
and in order to participate in what: ICANN?  

 I understand a concern about somebody using their position in ICANN to advance 
their career in the Uni or in the NGO, but i am not sure that a stmt like "the 
only reason i can attend ICANN meetings is because i was appointed as an NCA"  
or 'the only reason i got leave to come to nairobi is because i am 
participating in the xyz WG"  or " the reason the XYSG applied it funds from 
the council allotment for me to come to the meeting is because i am a 
contributor to this group" adds much.

would a retired person who participates purely out of interest have to add: " i 
find i am an ICANN policy junkie and the intangible benefit i get is because i 
think i am doing something useful with my life."

- re 5.5.1

> If ICANN Staff has reason to believe that a Relevant Party’s
> documentation is not complete, ICANN Staff shall notify the Relevant Party 
> and request that the
> omitted or missing information be provided or, if there are extenuating 
> circumstances,
> explanation as to why the document is incomplete.

I think they should consult with the chair etc... before taking any such 
action.  at the very least they siuld coy the chair on any such omission.  i do 
not mean this to apply to a form complaining about a blank answer.

- re 5.6.1

any time a chair uses the power to suspend or remove, it should kick of an 
immediate appeals/review by the chartering body.  i am not sure this is in the 
WG  draft, but it should be and I will check on that.

thanks
a.





On 2 Mar 2010, at 08:23, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>