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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Oh, ok.

I guess I misunderstood our original intent.

thanks

a.

On 18 Aug 2010, at 08:03, Ray Fassett wrote:

> Well said, Ron.  I concur with your thoughts.
> 
> Ray
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Ron Andruff
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:01 AM
> To: 'Avri Doria'; 'gnso-osc-ops'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Fwd: [] Re: [] On co-chair actions and appeals
> 
> 
> Thanks for this real case scenario, Avri.  (I hope that you enjoy your down
> time! ;o)
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:14 PM
> To: gnso-osc-ops
> Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Fwd: [] Re: [] On co-chair actions and appeals
> 
> 
> 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-05f
> 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
> 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.
> 
> 
>