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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri, I do not feel that staff is suggesting anything for us but rather
providing answers to questions we are asking.  There's been no WG discussion
to the question of whether a chair needs to have an SOI on file.  In other
words, as far as the WG is concerned, the Rules intend this to be a
participatory requirement of the chair.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:42 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Cc: Sam Eisner
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT
Call


Hi,

I hope that one of the questions is something like: "what harm does it do
for the staff to make the same declaration we all make".

Also the Chair of a group is supposed to be a neutral participant.  Are they
suggesting that chairs no longer do SOI/DOI declarations?  The fact that the
rules say you should be neutral is no reason for someone to not have to make
the statement themselves that they are neutral or that they do not have any
of the encumbrances anyone else can have.

A neutral participant is still a participant.  And a neutral participant is
still offering opinion that may affect the outcome in material ways.

a.



On 16 Sep 2010, at 04:25, Ray Fassett wrote:

> I think an accurate summary Rob.  Thanks for doing for us.
> 
> Ray
> 
> From: Robert Hoggarth [mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 9:22 PM
> To: Ray Fassett; 'gnso-osc-ops'
> Cc: Julie Hedlund; 'Ken Bour'; 'Sam Eisner'; Liz Gasster
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's
GCOT Call
> 
> Dear Ray and GCOT WT Members;
> 
> As promised on today's call, set forth below are action items and to-do's
I noted/collected during the call.  Please comment if I missed something or
clarify if you had any different impressions or understandings.
> 
> Topic - Issue of Need for Staff SOI's
> 
> WT members and Staff discussed various impressions of the need for and
value of Staff SOIs.  Staff will draft language to attempt to address WT
member concerns expressed on the call.  Focus will start with potential
definitional language changes to provide clarity on role of ICANN Staff and
consultants not as policy decision makers, but as neutral supporters of
Council, Working Group, Work Team, etc. efforts.
> Actor:  Office General Counsel (OGC)
> Due Date: 29 September
> 
> Topic - List of ICANN Contractors, etc. 
> 
> WT members and Staff discussed challenges of creating, publishing and
maintaining a list of entities "with which ICANN has a transaction, contract
or other arrangements."  Staff will continue to investigate operational and
logistical capability of developing a list.  In meantime, without prejudging
the continued need for creation of a list, WT Chair asked Staff to
investigate/develop potential language revisions regarding SOI content
requirements for community members.
> Actor:  OGC
> Due Date:  29 September
> 
> Topic - Need For Written DOIs and recommendations for meeting processes to
address DOI process requirements
> 
> WT members discussed possibility (but did not finalize or agree) that WT
could recommend amending the GOP to remove the requirement of "written"
DOIs.  Discussion also suggested that verbal DOIs be the norm at GNSO
meetings. Because of widespread impact of GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) to
so many work teams and groups, the WT Chair will communicate this sense of
the WT discussion to the GNSO Council Chair to head-off creation of any
elaborate new processes that may be rendered moot by subsequent GOP
amendment recommendations by the WT.  The matter of translated DOIs was
raised, but would appear to be moot if the written DOI requirement is
removed. This discussion will continue at the next meeting.
> Actors:  WT Chair and members
> Due Date:  Next meeting 22 September
> 
> Topic - Next Meeting
> 
> The meeting went over by about 25 minutes and WT Members agreed to meet
again next week to continue discussion of DOIs and to reach the Abstention
agenda item.
> Actor:  The GNSO Secretariat will schedule and provide notice of the next
call.
> Next call:  22 September
> 
> 
> It was a pleasure hearing all your voices and opinions together again.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Rob Hoggarth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/15/10 5:01 PM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
>