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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

My thoughts to today's call.  First, let's appreciate we are taking up
issues that have been bounced back to us.  Inherently, this means there is
some contention going on for us to recognize.  I see our role as a WT to
reason out where the contention resides and, where possible, remedy by way
of a consensus position that we can communicate as a group back to the OSC
in the form of a recommendation.

 

-        I am fine with the interests of ICANN staff personnel, including in
a policy support capacity, being covered under separate cover from the RoP
SOI so long as this can be affirmatively stated if/when the question comes
up.  Even in a support capacity, my thinking is staff has to be comfortable
saying that, at the end of the day, they are obligated to the interests of
their employer.  I am looking for guidance from staff that they are
comfortable stating this even when in a policy support capacity.  If so,
then I believe we have a substantive reason to explain, as a consensus
position, why the RoP with regards to SOI's are not required by ICANN staff
(or those under contract with staff in a consulting capacity).

 

-        I am questioning our ability as a WT to make recommendations that
mandate administrative practices & resource allocation upon ICANN staff from
the Rules of Procedure.  I think there can be a place for this, but one that
must be approached cooperatively with staff.  Of course, I am referring to
ICANN preparing/maintaining a list "with which ICANN has a transaction,
contract, or other arrangement".  Or how ICANN should accept SOI's in
multiple languages.  In a cooperative approach, I do not find resource
allocation as an illegitimate reason not to be able to implement, especially
upon acknowledgement that the vision for such resource allocation is shared.
In the meantime, our obligation is to investigate potential alternative
remedies that can lead to a consensus position.  Our history as a WT is that
upon such an approach to investigation, we have found the consensus position
for group recommendation that others later reviewing our work have agreed
with.

 

Comments/thoughts/feedback/criticism to any of the above is of course
welcome.  

 

Ray

 

 

 

From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:55 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

 

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