Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Actions from 29 Sept/Next Call 13 October

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 1 Oct 2010, at 13:23, Ray Fassett wrote:

> Thank you, Julie.
>  
> To your first action item, and not to split hairs, I think what I was looking 
> for from legal was an opinion of their reason (if they have one) as it 
> pertains to the ICANN organization (such as a liability concern, making this 
> up) vs. a legal reason (such as the citing of any statue or law).
>  

While reasons of concern may be substantive and worth discussing, I do not 
think they will be conclusive.  The needs for accountability and transparency 
are higher than just a fear of liability.  Part of ICANN's culture of secrecy 
has been explained for years based on the fear of liability.  I am am very much 
against allowing such reasoning to excuse continuing to operate in secret.  
Part of the whole reason for SOI and DOi is to enable ICANN to move into a 
culture of transparency.  If the staff is exempted from such transparency, we 
are wasting out time.

In this case, I afraid we must split those hairs.


> For the second action item, it appears to me from the discussion, and from 
> these documents, that the overriding intent, including by way of various 
> examples, was NOT for the DOI to be a required, written document whereas in 
> comparison, it is clearly the intent of the WT for the SOI be a required, 
> written document.

As you know, I dispute both your reasoning and your conclusion.  As I see the 
documentation they clearly support the claim that Ken was only following our 
instructions in what he wrote on the subject of written DOI.

And as much as I would like to get rid of the need to write DOIs, I think we 
made  (or at least acquiesced to) a decision, it was approved twice over and it 
is no longer the WT issue.

BTW, did the OSC put this issue back on the table or did we decide on our own 
that we wanted to change what we had produced?

a.