[gnso-osc-ops] RE: Action Items from 15 Sept Call

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

FYI only -- Here is the link to the graphic that Wolf-Ulrich is referencing.  
http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm

Thanks, Liz

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:11 AM
To: Ray Fassett; gnso-osc-ops
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Items from 15 Sept Call

Dear Ray and Work Team members,

I thought it might be helpful in preparation for today's call at 1700 UTC/1000 
PDT/1300 EDT to re-circulate the action items and to-do's that Rob sent from 
last week's call.  I will be on the call today along with Liz Gasster and we 
look forward to talking to you and answering any questions you may have.

Best regards,

Julie

------ Forwarded Message
From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:22:18 -0700
To: Ray Fassett <ray@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-osc-ops <gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Ken Bour' <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
'Sam Eisner' <sam.eisner@xxxxxxxxx>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
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<robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>'; 
'Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx<Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx>'; 
'Glen@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



------ End of Forwarded Message