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

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Philip, 
 
Pending clarification on these points I am not in a position to approve
the Section 5 draft today.  
 
Steve 

________________________________

From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 3:31 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Philip Sheppard'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 5
statements of interest



Steve, I am backtracking a little on this issue...will follow up.
Thanks for pointing it out.  As of now, I think it was discussed but
backtracking to see why the most recent version remained silent to it,
including whether or not an inadvertent omission...not saying this was
the case, just backtracking to see and will let you know what I find.

 

Ray

 

________________________________

From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 11:01 AM
To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ray Fassett
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 5
statements of interest

 

Unless I have missed it, the revised section 5 document now under OSC
review does not reflect the point raised below, which I believe a number
of OSC members supported.  Ray, was there a reason for the omission? 

 

I am also curious about the team's view on the relevance of "declared
country of residence, which may be the country to which you pay taxes,"
to the SOI/DOI process.  Why was this added to the SOI form?  

 

Steve  

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 3:43 AM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Ray Fassett'
Subject: [gnso-osc] OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 5 statements
of interest

Indeed I support Steve's additional thought re a list of contractors.

Ray, please add to your revised section 5.

Philip

--------------------------

A related issue to consider:  if this system is to work as proposed,
there needs to be an authoritative, current and publicly available list
of all "entities with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other
arrangement (e.g. Registries, Registrars, Consultants,etc)."  Otherwise,
a person who has a "compensation arrangement" with such an entity on an
issue totally unrelated to ICANN might well be unaware that this is a
relationship which s/he is supposed to disclose.   I don't think such a
list exists today, is ICANN in a position to prepare, maintain and post
it?