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

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

I also think it is the right way to go Avri.  We will just have to work on 
procedures to make it both effective and efficient.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 7:15 PM
> To: 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,
> 
> 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
>