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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

A discussion that brings about more consideration of issues, investigates
alternative solutions or further complicates issues with other issues is a
healthy thing in a WT, so with respect, Chair, I would not be too quick to
throw cold water on a friendly debate that is growing in intensity.
Ultimately, the fresh perspectives are what we need to get at to find the
solutions to the issues the OSC sent back to us.

I'd like to respond to several posts by various colleagues on this thread in
more general terms so forgive me if I do not address various questions
directly.

The mandate of this WT is to review, amend and develop policy
recommendations for the RoP under a new GNSO structure (houses).  Therefore,
I do not believe that we are trying to find solutions to non-existent
problems as Eric has posited; rather we are reviewing all elements of a new
proposed procedure to ensure that transparency and usability are addressed
in equal measure.  As such, the idea that all participants --whether staff
in a supporting role or volunteers from the community -- fill out a
Statement of Interest for the sole purpose of institutional transparency
makes more sense than granting an exclusion to those that, indeed, hold the
pen, irrespective of their ICANN contractual obligations and limitations, in
my view.  But, that said, I am open to arguments to the contrary.  The
driver here is 'building the institution'.  What will do that, is the
question I ask myself?  

In like manner, Eric argues a good point, i.e., every GNSO, working group,
work team or staff member should have the right to submit their SOI in their
primary language.  This will be a critical component if ICANN is to move to
a more mature state.  We already operate in the UN6, so we should make an
aspirational recommendation that SOIs be able to move in that direction too.
Aspirational in the sense that we start with English due to the resource
concerns our Chair has raised several times; then we move to UN6 as
resources are made available; and finally in all languages, say by the end
of ICANN's second decade of existence.  This just seems logical and
appropriate to me.

But for now, we need to focus on the basic issues of 'who' needs to fill in
an English written SOI (for all of the reasons noted) and how to implement
the practice of requesting DOIs prior to each meeting.  

With regard to the latter point of DOIs, I truly believe that our WT's
intention was that in practice the exercise would be done as we experienced
on our last call, i.e., the Chair asked if any WT member would like to make
a DOI.  When none of us spoke up, he confirmed for the record that no DOI's
were made and the meeting moved on.  The DOI component of our meeting lasted
less than 60 seconds.  In my view, we simply need to make this clarification
to the OSC and GNSO Chair and make any necessary modifications from a
resolution POV to ensure that it is properly enshrined in the RoP.  End of
story.

Sorry to all for the long post, but I attempted to bring all of the threads
that have begun since Wednesday's call into one collective to get us all on
the same page.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 7:33 AM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT
Call


Definitely should not send message when waking up after 4 hours sleep before
coffee.
my typos are worse than normal.


On 17 Sep 2010, at 07:36, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I do know if we need a group hug. Seems kinky to me.

I did not think we needed a group hug.  
the pesky word 'not' seems to get lost sometimes.

> 
> I thought it was a friendly tussle we were involved in.
> 
> In any case, I think we also have the issue to the rules we put out about
the way in which SOI/DOI was checked at each meeting.  I think practices is
already evolving in a different direction, so we may just want to adjust the
rules to the way tit is being done.

ie. it seems that many groups have instituted the practice of just asking
whether anyone has an SOI/DOI update to make.
while this is what I recommended in the committee, i tried to institute the
practice as defined in the rule.
and nearly got my head handed to me by the WG.

so, the question is do we leave a practice people don't like that will not
be followed or do we cange it to what the people seem to want.


> 
> I.e. we proposed that each person give an affirmative response at each
meeting, whereas the practice, one i think I argued for but tried to
implement after - being a good rule follower, is that a general question on
SOI/DOI update be asked and that silence was a sufficient response.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 17 Sep 2010, at 07:14, Ray Fassett wrote:
> 
>> Look folks, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here.  We're
>> going off on some tangents and I am ok with that.  But, let's keep to the
>> issues at hand, ones bounced back to us, with respect to the SOI:
>> 
>> .    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)
>> 
>> Do we need a group hug already??
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx]
On
>> Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:34 PM
>> To: gnso-osc-ops
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's
GCOT
>> Call
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Eric if you have another issue you would prefer to work on, please
convince
>> us and move us in that direction.
>> 
>> I understand you think my issue is irrelevant. I don't happen to agree. I
>> see it as a fundamental parity issue and those, for me, are always worth
>> arguing to the last breath.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 17 Sep 2010, at 00:15, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Ron,
>>> 
>>> So the necessity and utility of any disclosure is what?
>>> 
>>> I can see getting a disclosure that the staffer tasked with turning WG
>> written gorp into legaleze attended a law school that had a legal writing
>> clinic and that the staffer actually took it for a grade, but why
anything
>> else?
>>> 
>>> I'm afraid I don't understand the substitution of universal-isms, of
SOIs,
>> of lists of contracts and contractors, of ... for solving, or at least
>> identifying, actual problems of process and structure. It is as if real
>> problems are too difficult, so hypothetical problems, made up issues, are
>> better choices for make-work.
>>> 
>>> Eric
>>> 
>>> On 9/16/10 1:52 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Eric,
>>>> 
>>>> I understand your POV, but we have already agreed that staff facilitate
>> the
>>>> volunteer's work.  The do not advocate and cannot advocate on policy;
>> their
>>>> only reason for participation is to facilitate volunteer's policy
>>>> development, i.e., turn it into proper legaleze...  That part is clear
>> and a
>>>> non-issue to me.
>>>> 
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> 
>>>> RA
>>>> 
>>>> Ronald N. Andruff
>>>> 
>>>> President
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> RNA Partners, Inc.
>>>> 
>>>> 220 Fifth Avenue
>>>> 
>>>> New York, New York 10001
>>>> 
>>>> + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 1:42 PM
>>>> To: Robin Gross
>>>> Cc: Ray Fassett; gnso-osc-ops; Avri Doria; Sam Eisner
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's
>> GCOT
>>>> Call
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So ... if a staffer has filed a SOI/DOI, and it factually discloses
>>>> the staffer's interest in X, is the staffer free to advocate for X,
>>>> and is the staffer then participating equally (overlooking the bit
>>>> about the staffer being paid to participate, at random locations on
>>>> the surface of the Earth) with the volunteers and elected (through the
>>>> "bottom up, consensus driven, democratic manner") representatives of
>>>> Stakeholder Groups, Advisory Groups, and Working Groups?
>>>> 
>>>> This is not where I want to go. We're chasing a non-problem and
>>>> ignoring a known problem.
>>>> 
>>>> Eric
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>