ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-osc-ops]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Ray Fassett <ray@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-osc-ops <gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call
  • From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:09:18 -0700
Yes. I agree that in the interests of transparency (which ICANN consistently holds out as one of its primary values) every participant should file an SOI. It would be disappointing if that policy did not apply to those who hold the drafting pen in our policies (ICANN staff).
There can be no question that one's professional experiences shape their understanding and framing of issues, so those should be disclosed to the community just like everyone else must make such disclosures. ICANN cannot claim transparency, but then refuse to apply that value to itself. 

Best,
Robin

On Sep 16, 2010, at 9:59 AM, 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



-----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




















IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy