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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

As a member of the WT, my reaction was initially like yours, considering the 
amount of time it would take to ask at the beginning of every topic.  But on 
consideration it can be asked quite quickly, and like SOIs, my assumption has 
been that once the DOI was on file, the answer is quite quick.  It is only if 
it is not on file either because it is the first time the doI is required or 
because something is anomalous that it might take longer.  So I finally got to 
the point where I accepted that the small bit of extra time was worth the gain 
in credibility.  In the GNSO Council, people often do this anyway, it is just 
that the question becomes explicit.

With a new attitude in ICANN to Accountability and Transparency, I decided this 
was a good step in that direction.

a.



On 24 May 2010, at 18:52, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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