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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

i guess i would say, i accept the changes and if we all do, it might be worth 
sending the OSC a note saying yeah, that the change is ok, but please check 
with the WT next time before sending it to the Council with changes.

and i include my culpa for not having called the OSC on this earlier.

cheers


a.

On 16 Apr 2010, at 16:57, Ron Andruff wrote:

> Thanks for weighing in, Avri, but I'm not sure where you fall on this one.
> Can you clarify that for me/us?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> RA
> 
> Ronald N. Andruff
> President
> 
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 220 Fifth Avenue
> New York, New York 10001
> 
> + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 4:14 PM
> To: gnso-osc-ops
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: [gnso-osc] OSC review - GNSO procedures -
> section 5 statements of interest
> 
> 
> 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? 
> 
>