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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robin and Avri make some compelling arguments, which I am also inclined to
support.  I am asking myself why wouldn't ALL participants fill out an SOI
and respond (or not) to the DOI question when it is asked?  Once a
participating staff member has an SOI on file, like all of us, it remains in
place, i.e., no further action is required unless their circumstances
change, so it should not be any more burdensome on staff than it is on a
volunteer.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 1:09 PM
To: Ray Fassett; gnso-osc-ops
Cc: Avri Doria; Sam Eisner
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT
Call

 

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