RE: [gnso-osc-ops] RE: Today's GNSO Council results

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri and all,

Avri makes a good point about staff 'consultants' and I too agree that there
should be a requirement for 'non-full-time staff' to fill out SOI/DOIs to
ensure that the transparency we are trying to achieve in this is fulfilled.

Question: Should we all feel this way, where does our disbanded WT take this
new issue now that our train has effectively left the station?

Kind regards,

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, August 13, 2010 3:55 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] RE: Today's GNSO Council results


Hi,

Not trying to be difficult or ruin the party, but am in the process of
trying to implement some of these newly approved practices in the joint
ALAC/GNSO wg on support for new gtld applicants where i am a co-chair.

The following gave me pause.

> 5.4.2            Duty to Remind Participants and Speakers
> 
> a.     The GNSO Council Chair or Vice-Chairs, Working Group Chair, Work
Team Chair, Committee Chair, or Chair of any other organization formed by
the GNSO shall remind all participants to provide Disclosures of Interest
and updates to Disclosures of Interest at the beginning of each meeting
during which the Relevant Parties will discuss or act upon the specific
matter(s) to which the disclosure pertains and such disclosures shall be
recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

You will note with relief, i hope, that i am not still kvetching about
polling everyone at every meeting.  i think i have figured out how to do
with with minimum discomfort.

What i am wondering about is the meaning of "all participants"

Are staff members in a WG, participants?  i tend to think so, not in
relation to this rule necessarily but in terms of their 'participation' in
the group.  the express opinions and make suggestions.  true they aren't a
formal part of the consensus making, but in how many groups have we made
recommendations that the Staff was dead set against.

so it occurs to me that yes, they are included in 'all participants'

of course we have never asked them for SOI/DOI, and the assumption is that
of course their only Interest is ICANN and its well being of the Internet
and that this goes without saying.  

However, to what extent is that the whole story.  Some might be consultants
with other customers on the side.  Or some may have outside interests or
financial relationships that would be neither corrupt nor against their
employment contract, but that might intersect with the work being done.

Now, I know the easiest path it to just continue to ignore the interests of
the participating staff, but as most know, I sometimes am unable to choose
the easiest path.

So I am looking for guidance from my fellow WT members.

thanks
a.



On 5 Aug 2010, at 19:36, Ray Fassett wrote:

> Our baby is walking now huh?  They grow up so fast J

and as an parent knows, when they start walking, that is when the trouble
truly begins.

a.

>  
> THANK YOU Ken.
>  
> Ray
>