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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri, I am partially following your logic.  Is this your question: Should
the SOI procedure serve a purpose outside of the ICANN GNSO policy venue?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:32 AM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Cc: Sam Eisner
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT
Call


Hi,

I understand.  But a group statement is only duplicative if it is equally
true of each staff member.  And that requires the best of all worlds again
and a uniformity among staff member that would be very sad.

Without each of them explicitly saying so, we do not know if that is the
case.

I wil give another example, I am staff at the IGF, my role is to be a
neutral writer of reports about the meetings.  If the IGF was the sort of
place that required SOI of the volunteers, would it not also be appropriate
for me as a staff member to indicate that one of my volunteer activities had
ended up with becoming the chair of one of the organizations they talk about
(in the past we this was the case - and yes, most of them know)?

Likewise if an ICANN staff member was a volunteer member of the IGF
volunteer Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) that makes decisions about
agenda items at IGF meeting that might affect ICANN (e.g. they are currently
discussing the gTLD program at the IGF meeting and the degree to which
development needs were considered - the MAG designed the agenda for this
meeting), would it not be appropriate for that to be SOI'ed somewhere?

a.



On 16 Sep 2010, at 17:17, Ray Fassett wrote:

> Avri, you and I are saying the same thing just that you are being a bit
more
> direct about it.  The concept of being "cloaked in secrecy" is one way to
> put it.  Another way might be where someone is brand new to ICANN, some
> policy topic of interest has brought them to ICANN, where they consider
> participating (exactly what everyone wants) but before jumping in, want to
> understand who else is all involved and why.  So this person looks around,
> finds the SOI page, sees who the other people that are involved, feeling
> pretty good things, is ready to jump in except for the fact there are
these
> other people involved that s/he can't find anything about other than
"ICANN
> staff support" and has no idea what this means...or worse assumes are
> running the venue (could this not be a logical assumption to someone new?)
> I am certainly appreciating that what I am describing is one type of
> hypothetical.  What I am looking for is something this person can read
that
> informs him or her that ICANN staff support (these people assigned to the
> venue) means "not there to influence the outcome" (or whatever the exact
> words should be).  And if we can get our hands around this, then I think
we
> have something as a WT to rightfully and truthfully state as a legitimate
> reason (note I did not say "perfect") why participation by "ICANN staff
> support" personnel to a policy venue does not require an SOI as prescribed
> in the Rules, for it would be duplicative.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx]
On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:37 AM
> To: gnso-osc-ops
> Cc: Sam Eisner
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's
GCOT
> Call
> 
> 
> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>