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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

No, I do not think you did, Avri.  I think you were implementing them in
practice (thank you).  I think what Ron is saying is that there can be
different ways to get to the original intent.  Trial and error in the real
world is consistent to our WT principles, which pre-supposes someone has to
try for the benefit of all - as you did.  Personally, I see nothing that you
misunderstood.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:40 AM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Fwd: [] Re: [] On co-chair actions and appeals


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.
> 
> 
>