Re: [gnso-osc] Final OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 5 statements of interest

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ken Stubbs wrote:

Lets make the changes ourselves with the  inclusion of as definition of 
what constitutes " de minimis" ownership.

On 4/9/2010 5:58 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Steve has made what seem to me to be very constructive suggestions.  I 
> think the OSC has two options: 1) send the document back to the GCOT 
> with Steve's input for a little more revision; 2) make the changes 
> ourselves and notify the GCOT of the changes.  I don't have strong 
> feelings either way, but with either approach, we need to decide 
> whether the changes can be completed in time to  meet the Council 
> deadline of 13 April for submission to the Council for consideration 
> in the 21 April meeting.
> Even if we decide to make the changes ourselves, it seems that we 
> might need more time than what will be available between now and the 
> 13th so it might be best to strive to complete this for the May 
> Council meeting.  Other than the fact that we want to begin to wrap up 
> these kinds of issues as soon as possible, I do not think there is any 
> pressing need to rush this through on the 21st.
> I need to know by the 13th so that we can finalize the 
> proposed Council agenda on that day.
> Thoughts?
> Chuck
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
>     *On Behalf Of *Metalitz, Steven
>     *Sent:* Friday, April 09, 2010 5:39 PM
>     *To:* Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
>     *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc] Final OSC review - GNSO procedures -
>     section 5 statements of interest
>
>     I have a few concerns about this document.
>     First, I suggest that "investment interest" be defined to exclude
>     ownership of a de minimis number of shares in a publicly traded
>     company.  Otherwise, anyone who neglected to mention (or perhaps
>     even to know) that s/he owned a share of Microsoft, Google (both
>     accredited registrars) or Verisign (among others) might run afoul
>     of section 5.3.3.3.i.
>     Second,  we need to recognize that there will be circumstances in
>     which a requirement (under section 5.3.3.3.ii) to disclose that
>     (for example) a lawyer represents Google in a matter totally
>     unrelated to anything in the ICANN purview could present a problem
>     or at least a considerable delay in getting permission to disclose
>     the representation.  I suppose these could be treated as an
>     "extenuating circumstance" under 5.5.1 and I do not have an
>     amendment to propose at this point but just wanted to flag the
>     problem.
>     Third, the requirement to disclose "potential ... investment
>     interest in  or compensation arrangement with...." contracted
>     parties (section 5.3.3.3.iii) will need to be administered in a
>     common-sense manner.  Potentially, almost anything could
>     happen.  A potential that is concrete and imminent ought to be
>     distinguished from the broader range of potential occurrences.  I
>     hope we can assume common sense but that assumption is not always
>     well founded.
>     Fourth, is the reference to "nomination/selection as a work team
>     member" in section 5.3.3.5.v still relevant now that participation
>     in many of the GNSO entities is completely self-selected, with no
>     other nomination or selection process?  Shouldn't this be changed
>     to "participation"?
>     Fifth, I believe the reference to "Declarations of Interest" in
>     section 5.2.1 should be changed to "Disclosures of Interest" which
>     is the term used throughout the rest of the document.
>     In view of where this stands in the process,  I won't press the
>     second or third point above, but ask that the simple amendments
>     proposed in 1, 2, and 5 above be made before the document is
>     passed to the Council. I have also asked my constituency
>     leadership for any further input they can provide by the Sunday
>     deadline.
>     In my defense, I will note that the deadline for comments on this
>     document was the 16th until it was accelerated today to the
>     11th.   I would love to have the luxury of attending to these
>     documents as soon as I receive them but the nature of the ICANN
>     public comment decathlon does not permit that and I have no choice
>     but to deal with these roughly in the order of their impending
>     deadlines.
>     Steve Metalitz
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
>     *On Behalf Of *Philip Sheppard
>     *Sent:* Friday, April 09, 2010 5:05 AM
>     *To:* gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
>     *Subject:* [gnso-osc] Final OSC review - GNSO procedures - section
>     5 statements of interest
>
>     Dear OSC members,
>     in view of Council's deadline for their next meeting and the
>     absence of further comments from the OSC I am bringing forward the
>     end of our review period to 11 April.
>     Please find attached a proposed final OSC approved version of the
>     GCOT teams work on section 5 of the GNSO operating procedures
>     manual dealing with statements of interest.
>     The final version includes the OSC clarifications proposed by
>     Philip and Chuck.
>     In the absence of a chorus of disapproval I will submit the
>     attached to Council on Monday 12 April.
>     Philip
>     OSC Chair