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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

While I agree with my understanding of the COTS team sentiment that this is not 
something that necessarily belongs in the Council Operational Procedures as it 
is not properly speaking a council operational issue.  I also agree with Steve 
that it is a critical issue of transparency that should be required of ICANN.

My suggestion is that the Council votes on a separate motion, perhaps 
crafted/suggested by the OSC, that staff be directed to produce and maintain 
such a list.  This could be in the form of a letter sent to the staff and 
copied to the Board and to the AOC A&T RT.

a.

On 17 May 2010, at 10:36, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>