ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] OSC approval of amended Council procedures - 5.10 statements of interest - deadline 21 January 2011
  • From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:12:56 -0800

I am consulting with IPC members and may have more to offer but for now
a few responses to the dialogue in line below.   

Three additional observations: 

Section  In order for this provision to work, ICANN needs to
make available and keep current a list of all companies that have
"financial relationships or contracts with ICANN."  This includes
accredited registrars and gTLD registry operators (which are currently
disclosed), but is not limited to these. I know we have discussed this
issue before.  Can someone (staff?) remind us of status of this list? 

Section 5.3.4:  Updates are required "within ten business days OF ANY
INTEREST FORM."  (The words in CAPS need to be added, otherwise it is
not clear when the 10-day clock starts running.) 

A final clean-up will be needed: e.g., there are two cross-references to
5.5.3, which does not exist (should be 5.4.3?), and 5.3.3 refers to five
sections of the SOI when there are six listed.  

Steve Metalitz


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 5:13 AM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [gnso-osc] OSC approval of amended Council procedures -
5.10 statements of interest - deadline 21 January 2011

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 Cartagena.
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
Suggest wording is "primary residence"
Steve:  "country of primary residence" is the best choice.  Delete
reference to taxes because where one owes taxes may have little to do
with residence (e.g., US citizens may owe US taxes on income even if
they have no residence in the US)  

5.3.3 (4) Re: de minimus: Is this a global term ?  Does it need to be
defined somewhere?
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.
Steve:  The case could arise in which an attorney has an obligation to
maintain the anonymity of his/her client.  I am seeking further guidance
on this.  

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. 
Steve:  It is defined in section 5.1. 

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 

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy