RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Fwd:  Re:  On co-chair actions and appeals
- To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "'gnso-osc-ops'" <gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Fwd:  Re:  On co-chair actions and appeals
- From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:00:35 -0400
Thanks for this real case scenario, Avri. (I hope that you enjoy your down
I think Evan's recommendation is the way forward. That is how I saw it when
we discussed this issue. The key element is that everyone in the WG has an
opportunity to make a clarification if one is needed. By the same token, it
means that if that individual did NOT speak up, they are then on thin ice
should another WG member call them on it at some future point.
Let's not forget the intent here is to build institutional confidence in
ICANN and the surrounding community.
Ronald N. Andruff
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 Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:14 PM
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Fwd:  Re:  On co-chair actions and appeals
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.
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
> Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re:  On co-chair actions and appeals
> 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.
> (i.e i am escalating the appeal to the liaisons - i want them on the hook
> i do recommend that the liaisons report this to the chartering
organizations if that is what they decide.
> 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
>> . 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
>> Would this be acceptable?
>> - Evan
My Original introduction of the new process.
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
eb09-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
At last week's GNSO Council meeting, the council approved new GNSO Operating
Procedures (v2.0; 5 August 2010)
Section 5 of these procedures covers Statements of Interest and Declarations
> 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
> 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
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
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