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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 16 Sep 2010, at 19:59, Ray Fassett wrote:

> So, I am just gauging at the moment.  Is this where you are?
> 
> "And to my mind, Staff _are_ participants" = staff complete an SOI
> 
> 

yes.  except it is SOI/DOI.

thanks

a.


> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 12:54 PM
> To: gnso-osc-ops
> Cc: Sam Eisner
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT
> Call
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> My examples were just a way to show that being a staff member in an
> organization does not prevent you from having other interests.
> 
> The reason for an SOI as I see it, is to understand the perspectives that
> the participants bring to the policy process.  I know full well that as a
> staff member, albeit in another organization, one always has outside
> interests and knowledge that may, even unconsciously when one is consciously
> being a neutral as neutral can be, affects ones perceptions and hence ones
> recommendations and even what words they use in writing a sentence.  When
> writing a report, a choice of one word or another can change a meaning and
> every bit of outside baggage we bring into that writing process might
> influence the way the sentence comes out.  And yes, the rest of us all get
> to edit, but the person who writes the original words shapes the document.
> 
> So in an environment that makes policy that so many care so deeply about,
> often for financial reasons, where everyone is stripping naked, virtually,
> in an SOI - it is only right that we know all the interests of all the
> participants - just like the policy we wrote indicates.  And to my mind,
> Staff _are_ participants. Albeit it with different roles and
> responsibilities, but they are participants as they do participate in the
> discussions.  And in some cases, they actually do give both policy
> recommendations and process recommendations that can affect the entire
> trajectory of a policy.
> 
> Perhaps it is being a staff person in another organization, a job I am
> currently doing that makes me aware of the fact that we always carry our
> baggage.  And being professional means we do our best to put it down and
> never let it affect our work.  But we are human and we do have affinities
> and we understand things based on the shape of those affinities.  that s why
> we required even those with no financial interests to do a SOI/DOI that went
> beyond - no financial effect based on ICANN does not work as an answer
> anymore.  With staff we know there is a financial stake in what we do, so
> that goes without saying and is not an issue.  But what we need to know, its
> to what extent other interests may color the viewpoints.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 16 Sep 2010, at 18:18, Ray Fassett wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>