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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Here is my clarification:

 

As the Chair GCOT I went back to investigate the question.  I've determined
the issue was discussed.  While the WT felt the issue of ICANN maintaining a
list to be a valid point, there was not rough consensus to specifically
include into the Rules of Procedure.  For this reason, the WT chose not to
do so.

 

My own backtracking has me to believe that these are the relevant questions:

 

First, does such a list exist today?  And if it does, can ICANN staff
prepare maintain and post it?  And if it does not, can ICANN staff create
one and then maintain and post it?

 

Speaking as the Chair of the GCOT, I believe Steve is owed a response to
these questions along with the obligation by staff to research and provide
response.  Further, it is likely the Office of General Counsel would want to
consider the questions and would have a point of view.  It is my opinion
that this needs to be done prior to the GCOT incorporating language that
speaks to it into the Rules of Procedure.

 

My recommendation is for Council to direct ICANN Staff to explore a means
and mechanism to create and maintain such a list including with appropriate
considerations of privacy by XX date.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ray Fassett

Chair

GCOT

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Ray Fassett; Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] OSC review - GNSO procedures - section 5 statements
of interest

 

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?