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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:23:05 -0700
To: Ray Fassett <ray@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 5 statements of 
interest

Ray,

In addition to the comments received from the OSC, the PPSC Working Group Work 
Team has just forwarded to me comments received on a previous version of the 
SOI/DOI document during the public comment period on the Working Group 
Guidelines document.  The Working Group WT has asked that the GNSO Council 
Operations WT consider these comments as appropriate.  Some may no longer be 
relevant as they may have been addressed in later versions of the document.

If you would like, I can consolidate all comments and forward them to the GNSO 
Council Work Team for consideration prior to our meeting next week.

Thanks,
Julie

Chuck Gomes: What is the difference between a Statement of Interest and a 
Disclosure of Interest? In the Guidelines, both appear to include “a 
declaration of direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party’s 
judgment, or be perceived to affect that individual’s judgment ”. It would be 
helpful to clarify this in the document.

INTA: The Committee understands that the GNSO Secretariat will collect the 
expressions of interest to participate, verify that the submission was from a 
“real person,” and then send a confirmation of receipt with a SOI (a DOI form 
may also be required). Therefore, the Committee recommends:
· Taking precautions to ensure that these SOIs and DOIs do not inadvertently 
contain confidential personal information. It appears that the SOI and DOI will 
be posted on the Internet. (“The GNSO Secretariat shall post all SOIs, DOIs, 
any other self-selection disclosures or other related team member documents 
that have been received to the WG’s workspace (or alternate).”)
· making the following changes to the Template for the SOI (bearing in mind 
that this proposed template is being developed by the OSC GNSO Operations WT):
o “Current vocation, employer and position”
_ Add country/location of the individual.
o With regard to the requirement that the interested person “Identify any 
financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, 
registrars or other firms that are interested parties...” and “Describe any 
arrangements/agreements between you and any other group, constituency or 
person(s) regarding your nomination/selection as a work team member.”
_ State, if accurate, that this information will be kept confidential, and/or 
provide examples of recommended language to prevent individuals from disclosing 
sensitive information that could potentially expose ICANN to additional burdens 
to protect that information.
Consider that these submissions will come from people in many different 
jurisdictions with different regulations (some quite onerous) regarding the 
protection of sensitive information. Existing SOIs demonstrate that this 
information can be and has been provided in general terms.
· Providing a “checklist” that individuals fill in to ensure that a “no” 
response is tracked.
A review of existing SOIs shows that not everyone will confirm “they have no 
financial ownership interest”. 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/soi-irtp-a-pdp-oct08.shtml

Registry Stakeholder Group: It is unclear if there is any real difference 
between a ‘Statement of Interest’ and a ‘Disclosure of Interest’. Both 
documents appear to include “a declaration of direct or indirect interests that 
may affect a Relevant Party’s judgment, or be perceived to affect that 
individual’s judgment”. Would it be possible for a WG member to submit just one 
of these documents or are these documents interchangeable in any way?



On 4/12/10 3:06 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

Ray,
I would like to request that you agree and make these changes and resubmit to 
the OSC.
It seems there may be some thinking through and I believe that should be at the 
team level.
Please base changes on the attached.
In view of these changes the OSC should note the comment period is now 
re-established to April 16.
We will target the May Council meeting now not April.
Philip


________________________________
From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 11:47 PM
To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Final OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 5 
statements of interest

Of course my reference in the next to last paragraph should be to items 1, 4 
and 5, not 1,2, and 5.  Sorry about that.



________________________________
From: Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 5:39 PM
To: 'Philip Sheppard'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Final OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 5 
statements of interest

I have a few concerns about this document.

First, I suggest that "investment interest" be defined to exclude ownership of 
a de minimis number of shares in a publicly traded company.  Otherwise, anyone 
who neglected to mention (or perhaps even to know) that s/he owned a share of 
Microsoft, Google (both accredited registrars) or Verisign (among others) might 
run afoul of section 5.3.3.3.i.

Second,  we need to recognize that there will be circumstances in which a 
requirement (under section 5.3.3.3.ii) to disclose that (for example) a lawyer 
represents Google in a matter totally unrelated to anything in the ICANN 
purview could present a problem or at least a considerable delay in getting 
permission to disclose the representation.  I suppose these could be treated as 
an "extenuating circumstance" under 5.5.1 and I do not have an amendment to 
propose at this point but just wanted to flag the problem.

Third, the requirement to disclose "potential ... investment interest in  or 
compensation arrangement with...." contracted parties (section 5.3.3.3.iii) 
will need to be administered in a common-sense manner.  Potentially, almost 
anything could happen.  A potential that is concrete and imminent ought to be 
distinguished from the broader range of potential occurrences.  I hope we can 
assume common sense but that assumption is not always well founded.

Fourth, is the reference to "nomination/selection as a work team member" in 
section 5.3.3.5.v still relevant now that participation in many of the GNSO 
entities is completely self-selected, with no other nomination or selection 
process?  Shouldn't this be changed to "participation"?

Fifth, I believe the reference to "Declarations of Interest" in section 5.2.1 
should be changed to "Disclosures of Interest" which is the term used 
throughout the rest of the document.

In view of where this stands in the process,  I won't press the second or third 
point above, but ask that the simple amendments proposed in 1, 2, and 5 above 
be made before the document is passed to the Council. I have also asked my 
constituency leadership for any further input they can provide by the Sunday 
deadline.

In my defense, I will note that the deadline for comments on this document was 
the 16th until it was accelerated today to the 11th.   I would love to have the 
luxury of attending to these documents as soon as I receive them but the nature 
of the ICANN public comment decathlon does not permit that and I have no choice 
but to deal with these roughly in the order of their impending deadlines.

Steve Metalitz

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 5:05 AM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc] Final OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 5 statements 
of interest

Dear OSC members,
in view of Council's deadline for their next meeting and the absence of further 
comments from the OSC I am bringing forward the end of our review period to 11 
April.

Please find attached a proposed final OSC approved version of the GCOT teams 
work on section 5 of the GNSO operating procedures manual dealing with 
statements of interest.
The final version includes the OSC clarifications proposed by Philip and Chuck.

In the absence of a chorus of disapproval I will submit the attached to Council 
on Monday 12 April.

Philip
OSC Chair

<http://www.aim.be/>



------ End of Forwarded Message