RE: [gnso-osc] GCOT recommendations - SOI - adoption by October 31

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

Please see my comments below Avri.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:16 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] GCOT recommendations - SOI - adoption by
> October 31
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> While a member of the WT that is making these recommendations, I do
> want to register a concern.
> 
> I understand the pressure to do this quickly. The WT proposed a
policy,
> and the OSC and Council both approved a policy that the majority of
the
> community hated, so we quickly rewrote the policy to try and fix it.


[Gomes, Chuck] Whether or not it was done quickly or not is relative.
Certainly it is being done fairly quickly in normal GNSO time but it is
important to note that the need for change has been evaluated with some
care and not overly rushed in my opinion.  In my opinion, very little
value was added in council meetings by following the procedures
rigorously but it did add administrative hassles for Councilors (e.g.,
having to submit a written DoI in addition to being polled) and took
valuable time away from regular work.  As you will likely recall, I
expressed concerns about this before the GCOT originally finalized its
initial recommendations in this regard but ended up deferring to the
GCOT's opinions.  Also, before requesting the GCOT to reconsider the
details of the approved policy, I checked with the GCOT chair to see if
the GCOT had actually intended the consequences that resulted when the
policy was implemented and was left with the impression that that may
not be the case.

> 
> Good fix, perhaps.  We don't really know as we never gave the policy a
> chance to be used and never gave people the time to learn something
> new.

[Gomes, Chuck]  Not totally true.  We definitely did not try it very
long but we have tried applying it in at least three Council meetings,
although I admit that I have applied it less rigorously each time
because of time constraints and because I thought time was better spent
on actual business.

> 
> But definitely  a bad policy process.

[Gomes, Chuck]  Disagree.  We responded quickly to what I believe were
flawed procedures that were causing confusion and unnecessary
administrative hassles that added little commensurate value.  I know you
have a different opinion on that. We should always be willing to fix
decisions that need fixing.  We should also do that with careful
judgment and not rush to change things fast unless there seems to be
justification for doing that and unless there is broad support for doing
so.  I believe in this case that both are true but we will find out on
28 October.

> 
> As time goes on, we will find other policy recommended by PPSC and OSC
> and approved by the Council that at first do not fit very well -
change
> is never comfortable.  The urge to immediately roll back the changes
is
> tempting, but I believe unwise.

[Gomes, Chuck]  We have another example right now: the voting procedures
for abstaining Councilors whether because of inability to attend a
meeting or some other reason.  There have been lots of complaints about
the complexity of the process but we are not rushing to change.  On
October 28 we are taking time to try to understand why the complexities
were built in.  In this case, as chair it was not as clear to me that
the administrative hassles did not add commensurate value and so I
concluded that we needed to proceed more cautiously.   Also, in this
case there was no indication from the GCOT that their intentions were
not fully fulfilled in the resulting procedures that were approved.

> 
> I certainly hope that if the OSC passes these on we do so explicitly
> stating that this is not a precedent but an exception.

[Gomes, Chuck]  I see no problem with setting a precedent of making
changes quickly if they are justified.  It would be a problem if we did
it without due care but that is not the case here.

> 
> It is time for us to establish the New Process Oversight/Review WG
that
> the GNSO Council has started working on, but some inexplicable reason
> has been delayed in finishing.  It is time for that group to come into
> existence and for the OSC and PPSC to finish their work and blink out
> of existence.

[Gomes, Chuck]  That decision will be made on 28 Oct.  It will be a
Council decision.  I personally think it makes more sense to defer the
formation of the standing committee until the GNSO Improvement work
teams have all completed their work and to use the steering committees
in the meantime.  This is clearly another area where we disagree.

> 
> a.
> 
> On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:23, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 
> > Fellow OSC members,
> > please find attached a revised recommendation on statements of
> interest from the
> > GCOT team chaired by Ray Fassett.
> > It is revised based on input earlier from the Council.
> > Let me have your comments with a view to OSC adoption by October 31.
> >
> > After which, assuming a positive reception, we will re-send it to
the
> GNSO
> > Council.
> >
> > There is both a red-line and clean version.  The red-line version
has
> a brief
> > explanatory comment for each edit.  In summary the changes are:
> > 1.      To clarify that declarations of interest are not to be
> written documents
> > 2.      To exempt ICANN staff personnel from the requirement of
> completing
> > statements of interest (upon condition as stated)
> > 3.      To simplify the questions pertaining to the statement of
> interest form
> > while keeping to their intent (note this is section 5.3.3 originally
> not adopted
> > by the Council that we hope now will be as a result of these edits,
> assuming
> > approved by the OSC.)
> > 4.      To remove the condition that participants are to be
> individually polled
> > by the Chair for updates to their disclosure of interest due to
> feedback we've
> > received relative to the inefficiency of this condition in practice.
> >
> > Philip
> > OSC Chair
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions 15 Oct
> 2010 redline.docx><GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed
> Revisions 15 Oct 2010 clean.docx>
>