ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

FW: [gnso-osc] OSC approval of amended Council procedures - 5.10 statements of interest - deadline 21 January 2011

  • To: <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: FW: [gnso-osc] OSC approval of amended Council procedures - 5.10 statements of interest - deadline 21 January 2011
  • From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:12:58 +0100

thanks for the questions.
I think most of them can be answered by clarifications.
See below.

5.2.3  I think we may need to differentiate full time employees from those who
may be employees and not contractors, but who may have other employers as well.
This may be a moot point if there are not part time employees, but there could
be part timers.
I thought we were speaking of fulltime employees when we discussed this in
RESPONSE: lets revert to the original wording mentioning full time employees
only. If in doubt we expect an SOI.

5.3.3 (2)  I pay taxes in two countries.  How do I handle this?  Would I have to
list both?  Is that the intent?
RESPONSE: tax is not the issue - its only a guide to country of residence.
Suggest wording is "primary residence"

5.3.3 (4) Re: de minimus: Is this a global term ?  Does it need to be defined
RESPONSE: Well its Latin. We are asking for a judgement call on behalf of the
declaring party. ie the stock is so small a holding that there is no issue.

5.3.3 (5) 
a. what does it mean to be a representative?  If  someone is reporting
information to someone (even for pay), but  totally independent in terms of
actions taken in the group, are they a representative?
RESPONSE: Again a judgement call. If the person believes they represent then
they do.
b. Is it permitted to represent someone who wishes to remain unnamed?
RESPONSE: I believe this is exactly what the policy seeks to avoid.

5.3.3. (6i)  Does material interest have a global known definition?  Do we need
to define this somewhere.
RESPONSE: again a judgement call - it will vary with the issue so in-house
definitions will be tricky. 

also in Cartagena, I thought there had not been agreement to completely remove
disclosure of interest.  I though we had some sort of notion that there was a
need for group participants to verbally indicate if an specific topic during a
meeting brought up some specific issue of interest that was not immediately
obvious from the SoI.  I thought this mean there needed to be some paragraph
indicating that there was an obligation if during a discussions some disclosure
became necessary, it should be made at that point in time.
RESPONSE: Indeed its still there under 5.3.1 and 5.3.4 

Attachment: GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Revised by OSC 05 Dec 2010 clean with Gomes+ad editx.doc
Description: MS-Word document

On 12 Jan 2011, at 04:01, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> I find all of Chuck's suggested small edits and suggestions to be helpful 
> clarification to the intent of the group in Cartagena.
> Please treat the version with Chuck's edits as the document for approval.
> Philip

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy