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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Steve,

With respect to the status of the list, the GNSO Council Operations Work
Team at its meeting on 15 October agreed to modify the section to simplify
it and to put the onus on respondents to ascertain entities with which they
or their companies/organizations have a business relationship that may have
contracts with ICANN (rather than relying on ICANN to provide a list).  The
Work Team made its determination after discussions with ICANN staff
concerning the feasibility of a list. Also, I don't recall a request for
such a list by the OSC at its meeting in Cartagena, but I will defer to
Philip on this point.  (See attached Meeting Notes previously circulated to
the OSC.)

Thanks,
Julie


On 1/20/11 3:12 PM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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 5.3.3.4:  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
> MATERIAL CHANGE IN ANY INFORMATION APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF
> 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
> 
>  
> Avri,
> thanks for the questions.
> I think most of them can be answered by clarifications.
> See below.
> Philip
> ---------------------------
> 
> 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
> residence.
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Attachment: OSC Meeting Notes 05 Dec 2010 Cartagena.pdf
Description: OSC Meeting Notes 05 Dec 2010 Cartagena.pdf