RE: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ray, that's a very good point as well. LIz

From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 9:52 AM
To: Liz Gasster; 'gnso-osc-ops'
Cc: Julie Hedlund; Robert Hoggarth; 'Ken Bour'; 'Sam Eisner'
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call

Thank you, Liz.  I think the WT is going to need to deliberate whether 
exceptions should exist to the SOI procedure and, if so, then what may qualify 
for such exception.  Since this subject matter may more appropriately be for 
WG's vs. members of the Council, we may need to defer to the WT more close to 
developing the WG procedures and practices.

Ray

From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:41 PM
To: Ray Fassett; 'gnso-osc-ops'
Cc: Julie Hedlund; Robert Hoggarth; 'Ken Bour'; Sam Eisner
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call

Ray and all,

With regard to the issue of SOIs for staff, we understand that a question has 
arisen as to the need for ICANN staff (including those serving as ICANN 
contractors) who are staffing GNSO Working Groups to produce statements of 
interest as contemplated under the operating rules and procedures.

It is ICANN staff's view, in consultation with the General Counsel's office, 
that Statements of Interest are required of participants in GNSO processes; 
staff are not "participants."  Staff are assigned to and complete work in 
support of the GNSO groups on behalf of ICANN. While staff may offer advice and 
support to the GNSO processes, this is separate from the participation of the 
GNSO membership and other volunteers, who are expected to make the broader 
decisions on policy development and other issues before the GNSO.

We look forward to today's call.  Thanks!  Liz

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ray Fassett
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:08 AM
To: 'gnso-osc-ops'
Cc: Julie Hedlund; Robert Hoggarth; 'Ken Bour'
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call

I have added some thoughts for us to consider for the agenda today as follows:


 *   Discuss inquiry regarding  SOIs for staff (resolve need)
I think we've made a legitimate distinction of purpose in the RoP with regards 
to Conflicts of Interest vs. Statements of Interest. Are ICANN staff members 
(employees and contracted consultants) obligated to ICANN's Conflict of 
Interest policy?

 *   Discuss list of entities with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or 
other arrangement (confirm OGC advice and resolve need)
I believe this was a question/issue originally raised by Steve Metalitz.  The 
advice we gave as a WT was a recommendation to the OSC for staff to review the 
feasibility of compiling and maintaining such a list, and left at the 
discretion of the OSC whether they wanted to recommend to the Council to 
approve this section in parallel of this work was taking place.  Of course it 
was not recommended by the OSC to approve in parallel to this request to staff. 
 So my question is this:  Has staff looked at the issue of compiling and 
maintaining a list and informing us that this is not feasible?

 *   Discuss Work Team member concerns about available forms for SOIs and DOIs 
(resolve info collection process)
I think the spirit of the WT, by my recollection, was for efficiencies and ease 
of use.  We talked about an online submission form process for these objectives 
as I recall.

 *   Confirm need for written DOIs (address Councilor concerns about compliance 
burdens)
I need to understand the issues here better.

 *   Discuss potential Work team recommendations regarding Council meeting 
process questions (e.g., what should actually be required on each call re: 
polling)
I think there can be logical methods to steam line this.

 *   Staff status report on community discussion/implementation of new voting 
abstention procedures
I admit to hearing issues of complexity but not, in my view, enough to offset 
the purpose as we thought it out.


From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:48 PM
To: 'gnso-osc-ops'
Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Ken Bour'; 'robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx'; 
'Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx'; 'Glen@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call

Working with staff, I think this is an appropriate starting point for our WT 
call this Wednesday, please see below.

Ray

Proposed Draft GCOT Agenda Items Regarding GNSO Statements of 
Interests/Declarations of Interests:

 *   Discuss inquiry regarding  SOIs for staff (resolve need)
 *   Discuss list of entities with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or 
other arrangement (confirm OGC advice and resolve need)
 *   Discuss Work Team member concerns about available forms for SOIs and DOIs 
(resolve info collection process)
 *   Confirm need for written DOIs (address Councilor concerns about compliance 
burdens)
 *   Discuss potential Work team recommendations regarding Council meeting 
process questions (e.g., what should actually be required on each call re: 
polling)
 *   Staff status report on community discussion/implementation of new voting 
abstention procedures