Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: [gnso-osc] OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 5 statements of interest

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

i sit on the OSC as well and basically watched this happen and found that i was 
neither so in favor as to say '+1'  nor so against as to say anything at all.

i did not disagree with the changes, but was not sure about the practice of not 
checking with the WT first.  now seeing it in the WT, i think i should have 
said something.

a.

On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:52, Ron Andruff wrote:

> Ray and all,
> 
> As you may recall, I sit on the OSC as well, so I had suggested that the OSC 
> make this recommendation to the GNSO when forwarding the revised OP on to 
> them.  Philip has chosen to send this back to us for reasons I don’t 
> understand.  That being the case, I would suggest that we ask staff to 
> incorporate this recommendation as a footnote and send it back to the OSC.  I 
> do NOT think that this is an issue for further discussion within the team, 
> unless other Work Team members think differently.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> RA
> 
> Ronald N. Andruff
> President
> 
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 220 Fifth Avenue
> New York, New York 10001
> + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
> 
> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Ray Fassett
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 8:05 AM
> To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: [gnso-osc] OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 
> 5 statements of interest
> 
> Team, fyi below…
> 
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 3:43 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'Ray Fassett'
> Subject: [gnso-osc] OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 5 statements of 
> interest
> 
> Indeed I support Steve's additional thought re a list of contractors.
> Ray, please add to your revised section 5.
> Philip
> --------------------------
> A related issue to consider:  if this system is to work as proposed, there 
> needs to be an authoritative, current and publicly available list of all 
> "entities with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement 
> (e.g. Registries, Registrars, Consultants,etc)."  Otherwise, a person who has 
> a "compensation arrangement" with such an entity on an issue totally 
> unrelated to ICANN might well be unaware that this is a relationship which 
> s/he is supposed to disclose.   I don't think such a list exists today, is 
> ICANN in a position to prepare, maintain and post it?