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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed, Chuck, there is a trade-off.  But without meaning to put words in
the mouths of my colleagues on the GCOT Work Team, we see this issue as one
of significance in building institution confidence, while rendering ? as a
thing of the past ? all references to ?ICANN insiders?; a term that is
whitewashed across everyone one of us that is active in the ICANN community.


 

Like many others, I personally take offensive at being called an ICANN
insider not simply because of the amount of non-paid time I dedicate to
ICANN work, neither because of the significant financial burden that my
physical participation at ICANN meetings demands I accept; rather because
that phrase is a big target for any cynic to take a shot at whenever it
suits their fancy because the hardworking members of the ICANN community,
dedicated to ICANN?s success vis-à-vis managing the Internet resources, have
done nothing to remove it.  DOIs (and SOIs) are a demonstrative step in
removing that target once and for all.

 

In any case, my personal observations to the OSC list, as noted above, are
of a lesser consequence; the final decision on this rests with you and the
Council and I hope that you can now appreciate better where we were going
with this.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 5:43 PM
To: Ron Andruff; 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

 

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