[gnso-osc-ops] Fwd: [] Re: [] On co-chair actions and appeals

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

I am in the process of flying to a few day vacation, but since this is the 
first time i have ever had  wifi in the sky, and i am complete addict, i 
figured i would pass on the issue to the group.  More as part of the feedback 
on our work than a request for any particular action.

Perhaps I am the first to try and establish the rule requiring polling of all 
WG members at each meeting on their SOI/DOI status. 
(anyone else try? - none of the other groups i am in as a WG member have)

And perhaps I introduced it badly in the New gTLD Support WG - a Joint 
ALAC/GNSO group.  Though I tried to do it in a reasonable manner.

And perhaps I totally misunderstand what we are supposed to be doing.

But at several  members of the group have complained strongly about the polling 
method.  And one is appealing my decision to introduce the practice as being a 
waste of his time in the meeting.

But, being a loyal messenger of the groups recommendation and the GNSO 
council's decision, I insisted that we needed to poll.  I argued that if we do 
it as part of the attendance taking process, it would be quick - just a simple 
'yes it is up to date' or give a qick update.  But the appeal was made to the 
co-cairs that my decision be reversed.

My co-chair is recommending that we follow a different process.    As you will 
see below, I am asking the liaisons for a ruling.  Since this is what i argued 
for in the first place, I do not beleive I can decide to accept the new process 
without escalation.

I wish everyone else luck in establishing the new methodology.

cheers,

a.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: 17 August 2010 14:41:13 PDT
> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>, carlos aguirre 
> <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>, soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: [] On co-chair actions and appeals
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> this is exactly what i argued for in the committee.
> but i do not believe that is what the rules mandate.
> 
> but if our liaisons are fine with, I am fine with it.
> i will accept the overrule.
> gladly.
> 
> (i.e i am escalating the appeal to the liaisons - i want them on the hook 
> with us)
> 
> i do recommend that the liaisons report this to the chartering organizations 
> if that is what they decide.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 17 Aug 2010, at 14:31, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 
>> 
>> While its completely reasonable to ensure that people have SOIs that are 
>> kept current, it takes a *lot* of time to go one-by-one to get everyone to 
>> say "current" or "no change" or something like that.
>> 
>> Here is what I suggest.
>>      • At the time recording starts, Staff reads a list of names of people 
>> known to be on the call.
>>      • Then a Chair asks, "is there is anyone on the call who has not yet 
>> identified themselves."
>>      • Then a Chair asks, "has anyone here changed their SOI circumstances 
>> since our last meeting?"
>>      • Anyone with a change speaks up. After sufficient time of silence, we 
>> assume that all others are current and move on.
>> All but step 3 are already being done. Adding #3 takes some time, but not 
>> substantially.
>> 
>> Would this be acceptable?
>> 
>> - Evan
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------


My Original introduction of the new process.

Hi,

Though this group is a joint WG of the ALAC and the GNSO, we are operating 
under a charter that requires:

> The Working Group will operate according to the interim working group 
> guidelines set out in the Draft Working guidelines of 5 Feb 2010

These working group guidelines 
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05feb09-en.pdf>
 include the following statement:

> Statement of Interest1 Template
> [Editorial Note: As developed by the OSC GNSO Operations Work Team. To be 
> cross-referenced and updated once Operations Work Team has finalized the 
> language]

At last week's GNSO Council meeting, the council approved new GNSO Operating 
Procedures (v2.0; 5 August 2010) 
<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf>

Section 5 of these procedures covers Statements of Interest and Declarations of 
Interest.

> Statement of Interest:  Relevant to membership of the GNSO Group.  A written 
> statement made by a Relevant Party that provides a declaration of direct and 
> indirect interests that may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant 
> Party's judgment, on any matters to be considered by the GNSO Group.
> 
> Disclosure of Interest:  Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time.  A 
> written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests 
> that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. 
> non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and 
> may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a 
> specific issue.
> 

I have attached a PDF of an except from the GNSO Operating Procedures that the 
Staff has kindly provided on the SOI/DOI requirements.

I ask that each of the members take note of these updated requirements, and 
update their SOI as necessary.  If a DOI is required, e.g. if someone is 
working with a group that plans to apply for the specific benefits we are 
discussing, please submit a statement to the group to that effect.

I remind people that having an interest is _not_ a problem and does not affect 
anyone's participation, that is the intent of the multistakeholder process, 
most everyone of us has some stake, i.e. interest.  The concern is that 
everyone's interest be known, i.e.we have a requirement for transparency.

I also point out paragraph 5.2 in the attached SOI/DOI guide:

> 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.  Participants should be polled individually by the Chair to 
> ensure that all updates to respective Disclosures of Interest have been 
> received and those responses shall be recorded in all minutes.  At that time, 
> anyone who has a question about the interpretation or meaning of a Relevant 
> Party’s Disclosure of Interest may petition the Chair to request 
> clarification from the Relevant Party.  Concerns related to the accuracy 
> and/or completeness of a Disclosure of Interest are addressed in Paragraph 
> 5.5. 
> b.     At the beginning of any ICANN public meeting, forum, or discussion 
> being coordinated and/or moderated by the GNSO, the person acting as Chair or 
> coordinator of the public meeting, forum, or discussion shall encourage all 
> speakers to provide Disclosures of Interest prior to beginning their remarks. 

I would note that as a member of the OSC WT that came up with these rules, I 
was a bit squeamish about the need to poll all members at every meeting.  
However, I lost on this topic and the requirements does call for the polling at 
each meeting.  I think this may be best done in combination with the taking of 
attendance at the beginning of the meeting, so I suggest that we try this out 
at the start of our next meeting.  I beg the group's indulgence on getting by 
any awkwardness the introduction of the new practices may cause.

Thanks 

a.