RE: [gnso-osc] GCOT Ops Section 5 - disclosure of interest - revised proposal for the OSC

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ron.  Like I said, I support the intent. But I am still concerned
that it could absorb a lot of meeting time, especially if it was done
for every major agenda item.  Maybe it is worth the meeting time but we
should at least be aware of the impact up front.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 5:04 PM
To: 'Philip Sheppard'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Ray Fassett'; 'Ken Bour'
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GCOT Ops Section 5 - disclosure of interest -
revised proposal for the OSC

 

Chuck,

 

Good catch on 5.3.3, you are correct that Relevant Parties indeed need
to respond to six things rather than five.  As a member of the GCOT,
upon receiving community feedback from the public comments, we added in
a declaration of country of residence (now #2 in the list), which
obviously lengthened the list to six.  

 

So this is an example of the GCOT Chairman's request, i.e., non-material
changes should be done at the OSC level, and therefore I would recommend
to the OSC Chair that this edit be incorporated in the final
documentation sent on to Council.

 

Chuck wrote: At what point does a disclosure of interest requirement
occur?  It seems like there could be lots of points in our activities
when a DoI would be needed and in different venues (WG, Council
meeting).  It seems like it will be a logistical challenge to keep track
of these for each meeting when they would be needed.  And in some
meetings there may be multiple needs for DoI's for different topics.  Am
I making more of this than I should?  Or does the policy need to provide
more detail in this regard?  I am thinking the latter but curious what
others think.

 

I support the concept but implementation may be challenging so some
guidance there would be helpful in the procedures.  I actually made a
DoI in the Council meeting yesterday.  I wouldn't be surprised if others
should have done the same on the issue at stake and possibly on other
issues on the agenda.  I am just not convinced that this is going to be
easy to manage and consume a lot of time.

 

It is more the latter than the former ("Am I making more of this than I
should?  Or does the policy need to provide more detail in this
regard?"), Chuck.  The GCOT's thinking, again, is about creating more
institutional confidence through transparency.  Our rationale is that
when a Chairperson opens the dialogue for the next agenda item, he/she
asks the members of that WG, Council meeting, etc. if anyone has a DOI
they would like to state for the record before proceeding.  The
'policing' of this policy is clearly detailed in this section the
Operating Procedures, but when followed every time one person declares a
DOI, as you did at the recent Council meeting, it adds more weight to
that individual's credibility, as well as the credibility of ICANN as an
open and transparent organization.  Every time a DOI is declared it also
puts all others who are Relevant Parties at that meeting on notice that
by not declaring their interest when given the chance that 'their
omission' is open to be challenged by any member of the community at any
time thereafter.  It is the GCOT's hope that members of the community
will embrace and implement the enforcement tools in the procedures to
call out those within the community that choose to not be wholly
truthful with the rest of the community about their affiliations and
their activities.  Over time, it is anticipated that the public
embarrassment factor (that untruthful community members will be obliged
to endure) will serve as an ever-stronger deterrent with the net result
will be an open, transparent ICANN process.

 

Separate to this, but related, is the concept Steve Metallitz
recommended, i.e. having ICANN post a list of all contracted parties so
that it is clear with whom ICANN has agreements, as well as clear with
regard to whether or not any Relevant Party has any dealings with any
entity on that list.  While not part of SOI/DOI, per se, this list will
support and serve Section 5 very well.

 

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you and you can now see where
the question fits in the meeting discussion.  Adding some DOIs to the
record may take some time, but it will be time well-spent if it
strengthens confidence in ICANN.

 

And may I also add, "Well done!" for setting the example in your recent
Council meeting.  Your actions reflected the GCOT's hoped for response
to this work item.

 

In closing, Avri and Wolf-Ulrich are also both on the OSC and GCOT so
they may have further input/insights into the issue or my comments.  I
have also copied the GCOT Chair and Ken Bour who was our drafter for a
good deal of the procedures so that they are aware of your numerical
error noted at the top of this email.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 4:00 PM
To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GCOT Ops Section 5 - disclosure of interest -
revised proposal for the OSC

 

 

I think there is a typo in the following:

 

" 5.3.3  Content

Relevant Parties shall complete all five sections of the Statement of

Interest form as specified below: " There are six sections that follow.

 

In thinking further about the Disclosure of Interest requirement I have

come up with a few questions.  At what point does a disclosure of

interest requirement occur?  It seems like there could be lots of points

in our activities when a DoI would be needed and in different venues

(WG, Council meeting).  It seems like it will be a logistical challenge

to keep track of these for each meeting when they would be needed.  And

in some meetings there may be multiple needs for DoI's for different

topics.  Am I making more of this than I should?  Or does the policy

need to provide more detail in this regard?  I am thinking the latter

but curious what others think.

 

I support the concept but implementation may be challenging so some

guidance there would be helpful in the procedures.  I actually made a

DoI in the Council meeting yesterday.  I wouldn't be surprised if others

should have done the same on the issue at stake and possibly on other

issues on the agenda.  I am just not convinced that this is going to be

easy to manage and consume a lot of time.  As it stands, we were unable

to finish the agenda yesterday and that is an all too common occurrence.

 

Chuck

 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On

> Behalf Of Philip Sheppard

> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:19 AM

> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx

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

> revised proposal for the OSC

> 

> 

> Dear OSC,

> 

> In view of the most recent dialogue on this section of the GNSO

> operating procedures manual I propose the following based on the

> attached text (this has been through our 10 day adoption period).

> 

> The OSC recommends to Council:

> a) the immediate adoption of the attached operating procedures section

> 5 on disclosure of interest with the exception of parts 5.3.2 and

> 5.3.3;

> b) that Council request ICANN Staff to create and maintain a list as

> specified in 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 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;

> c) that upon completion of this list, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 are

automatically

> adopted.

> 

> Let me know if anyone in the OSC disagrees with this proposal by May

> 23.

> If so we will either conduct a vote or defer until our physical

> Brussels meeting for further discussion and decision.

> 

> 

> Philip