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

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

Very helpful Ron. Thanks for taking the time to explain. 

Chuck


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx> 
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Philip Sheppard' <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>; 
gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: 'Ray Fassett' <ray@xxxxxxxxx>; 'Ken Bour' <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Mon May 24 18:18:53 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GCOT Ops Section 5 - disclosure of interest - revised 
proposal for the OSC 



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