RE: [gnso-osc] GCOT Ops Section 5 - disclosure of interest

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

Ray, my apologies if I misinterpreted the statements in your previous
e-mail. 

My position is that OSC should recommend that the new provisions not
become operative until the issues regarding the list are resolved.
Otherwise it may be quite difficult for people to comply with the new
provisions.  

Steve

  

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:30 AM
To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Philip Sheppard';
gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GCOT Ops Section 5 - disclosure of interest

Steve, you are likely interpreting my personal view.  But I wish to make
clear that the GCOT discussed the issue, and while considering it valid,
chose not to include language into the RoP sent to the OSC for its
approval.
The WT did not consider the necessity of a published list to impede
implementation of Section 5 as-is.  Simply put, I would not have been
directed by the GCOT members to send Section 5 to the OSC if their
intention was not for the OSC to approve for implementation as-is.  With
this said, speaking for the WT, on balance, I am of the view that
Philip's motion, slightly modified from my own, as a result of your
input and feedback, to be consistent and appropriate to the WT's view
that the issue carried validity.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:40 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GCOT Ops Section 5 - disclosure of interest


OK, with the understanding that OSC recommends that the new provisions
not become operative until the issues regarding the list are resolved.
I believe this is consistent with the views expressed by Ray Fassett.  

Steve  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:20 AM
To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GCOT Ops Section 5 - disclosure of interest


I am fine with this Philip except I suggest we say "request ICANN Staff"
instead of "direct ICANN Staff", which I am sure you intended anyway.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 4:09 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-osc] GCOT Ops Section 5 - disclosure of interest
> 
> Dear OSC,
> 
> In view of the dialogue on this section of the GNSO operating 
> procedures manual I propose the following.
> We adopt the attached text as the OSC (this has been through our 10
day
> adoption period).
> 
> We take up the reply from GCOT Chair Ray to Steve's point about a list

> with the following suggestion to Council chair Chuck.
> 
> The OSC recommends that Council direct ICANN Staff to explore a means 
> and mechanism to create and maintain a list of all "entities with
which
> ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement (e.g.
> Registries, Registrars, Consultants,etc)." with appropriate 
> considerations of privacy by XX date.
> 
> Steve, Chuck
> let me know if you support this outcome.
> 
> Philip