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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I did not really mean they were making a suggestion.  Sorry if that seemed 
implied.

What I mean was their answer said - we are supposed to be neutral therefore we 
obviously have no other interest.
By inference, it feel that this should then apply to the chair - the chair is 
supposed to be neutral, so obviously the chair has no other interest.

In the best of all possible worlds, this might work.
ICANN is a wonderful place full of wonderful people, but it is far from the 
best of all possible worlds.

I will go further, we have a lot of people who participate in ICANN for no 
financial interest but purely for what they understand to be the public good.  
But because it is extremely hard for the profit motive inspired participants to 
believe that anyone in their right mind would ever participate in ICANN for the 
public good, these so called do-gooders must admit to all sort of other 
'advantages' they might get from their participation.  I personally believe 
that this was a horrible invasion of their privacy, but for the sake of full 
transparency I go along with it. 

But for all of us to tell what our smallest interest might be while the staff 
can remain cloaked behind a mantle of neutrality, is just wrong.  I am just 
asking them for a simple statement of what should be the truth.  It worries me 
especially that they are not willing to be as open as the volunteers.  I do not 
understand what they are afraid of.  How can we build a culture of transparency 
in ICANN when one part of the population is allowed to remain secret.

a.

On 16 Sep 2010, at 16:08, Ray Fassett wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
>