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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri, I do not think we have disagreement that ICANN staff members should
declare their interest openly and transparently.  It is more the method of
doing so that I think we are discussing.

I understand and appreciate your interpretation of my reasoning and of
course other members of the work team are able to do same.

I was asked if the rules for written DOI's was the intent of GCOT and I
brought this back to the Work Team to ask them which is the reason we are
discussing it.  It was my decision as the Chair to accept the question and
to ask the WT its opinion.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 3:34 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Actions from 29 Sept/Next Call 13 October



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.