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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In 5.2.2 I'd like to see ICANN's role to be collection, access, and
archival store of the SOI's of the Relevant Parties.

In 5.3.4 there is a recording in the minutes of meeting. Wouldn't this
require the minute taking process to check each RP's SOI for a change
prior to posting the minutes?

In 5.4.2 (a) there is a reminder which (a) applies to "The GNSO
Council Chair or ... or Chair of any other organization formed by the
GNSO ..." and (b) is intrusive upon every meeting.

Taking these in order, the reminder is not limited to organizations
formed by the GNSO for the development of policy (see the definition
of "Relevant Party, section 5.1), but to anything. Suppose the GNSO
forms a one-meeting ad hoc organization to price bulk beer in
Bruxelles, we'd have to notice and minute the SOIs on that. Next, the
notice and minutes are intrusive to every meeting, therefore they will
become about as useless as any other purely decorative pro forma act.

The scope is incorrectly not limited to policy development, and the
duty is so frequent as to become decoration. Quarterly notice may be
sufficient, and taken by the RPs as real notice, not just something to
ignore while getting coffee or catching up on last night's email.

In 5.4.2 (b) things get worse. We could end up with a significant loss
of meaningful face-to-face time to long, and generally uninteresting
pseudo-SOIs.

I recommend that we encourage the adoption of reference to employer
and an on-file SOI, e.g., "Hi, I'm Eric Brunner-Williams, representing
CORE, and my statement of interest is on file. Blah blah about some
topic blah". What I don't want is to hear how many wierd ways people
have some marginal interest in an outcome, or how creative they are at
finding self-interest.

Basically, I don't think Steve Goldberg added anything to the meeting
where he made an ass of himself insisting that every speaker speak
about something that probably has very little to do with what they are
speaking to -- as if we're all just a little bunch of corrupt thugs
mindless representing the greed of our bottom-line obsessed employers.

I think 5.4.2 (b) is worse than the problem it purports to cure. If
there is a place for the issue, it is a question from the Chair to the
participant, after hearing from the participant that ZombieOff is
wicked good for something or another, to ask politely, simply as an
item of information, if the participant has an interest in ZombieOff.

In 5.5.1 there is ICANN Staff reviewing the SOIs for completeness.
I've no idea how ICANN Staff is as, or more, qualified than anyone one
else on earth. But this goes also to the locus of control of the
information -- does the GNSO Council spend some agenda time, say 15min
once a year, to circulate and peer-review the SOIs, so that the
Councilor interests are known to the Council members, rinse and repeat
for each subordinate GNSO constituted organization for which SOIs are
necessary, or is this an ICANN Staff responsiblity carried out
"confidentially"?

Personally I favor peer-review, aka "self-policing" by the GNSO over
third-party policing by ICANN Staff, for formal reasons, and also as
it seems likely to be as informed, if not better informed, than Staff.

Cheers,
Eric