[gnso-osc-ops] SOI/DOI Issues

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ray and Work Team members,

I understand that the GCOT will be discussing more about SOIs in the near 
future.  Staff will be sending a note shortly to the group that further shares 
our perspective, but I did want to give you a heads up now that staff has a 
different view of the role of ICANN staff in working groups and the 
applicability of SOIs to staff.

In addition, as I mentioned previously another issue is how to address concerns 
with section 5.3.3, number 4i, ii, and iii (see below).  As you recall, this 
section is not approved.  One concern that Kristina Rosette pointed out is the 
burden the requirements place on the Working Group member trying to respond to 
the requirements as currently drafted.  This burden – as well as the potential 
scope of inquiry that may be appropriate (such as interests in registry service 
providers and resellers – entities that ICANN does not contract with and cannot 
enumerate) -- raises the base question of whether the requirements currently 
drafted even meet the needs of the GNSO.  The requirements in 5.3.3 were 
drafted based upon the Board’s conflict of interest policy, a policy tailored 
to corporate governance needs and – as we’re starting to see – not tailored to 
members of a Sponsoring Organization that do not hold fiduciary obligations to 
ICANN.  If these requirements are not altered, we could be placing too high of 
a barrier on those wishing to participate in the work of the GNSO.  Instead, 
the Work Team could consider the question of what is the information that we 
need to know to make a statement of interest meaningful and useful, and then 
the Work Team can propose language to meet those requirements.  One proposal 
could be for the Work Team to consider revising the language of question 4 in 
the original SOI that GNSO Council members have been (and are currently) using 
before these new procedures were devised, and not focus on tweaking the 
proposed section 5.3.3 to fit a circumstance that, in retrospect, it was never 
properly suited to address.

How would you suggest we proceed with these issues Ray?  Perhaps we could 
schedule a Work Team meeting at our regular time of 1700 UTC/0900 PDT/1300 EDT 
either next Wednesday the 25th or Wednesday 01 September to discuss these 
issues.   Please let me know and I will make the arrangements.  If you wish we 
could invite Kristina Rosette and Steve Metalitz since they both have expressed 
concerns with section 5.3.3.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Julie


5.3.3
4.    Please identify any ownerships, investment interests, or compensation 
arrangements by answering the following three questions:
              i.      Do you have any ownership or investment interest, 
excluding ownership of a de minimis number of shares in a publicly traded 
company, in any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other 
arrangement (e.g. Registries, Registrars, Consultants, etc.)?  Please answer 
“yes” or “no.”  If the answer is “yes,” please provide the name of each entity 
for which such an interest exists.
             ii.      Do you have a compensation arrangement with any entity or 
individual with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement 
(e.g. does the Relevant Party have a consulting arrangement with a Registrar)? 
Please answer “yes” or “no.” If the answer is “yes,” please provide the name of 
each entity for which such an arrangement exists.
           iii.      Do you have potential ownership or investment interest in, 
or compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which ICANN is 
negotiating a transaction, contract, or other arrangement?  Please answer “yes” 
or “no.”  If the answer is “yes,” please provide the name of each entity for 
which such a potential ownership, interest, or arrangement exists.