Bill, Here's one example: Some people may not receive any direct financial benefit from participation in GNSO work but they might receive recognition that promotes their reputation and stature in the activities that they are involved in whether that be in academia, in civil society, in government, or whatever. They also may be elevated in stature in groups that appreciate efforts they make to promote certain positions those groups advocate. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:12 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS Hi On SOIs in 5.3.3---Do you have any type of commercial or non-commercial interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes? Please answer "yes" or "no."-could someone remind me how exactly we're defining a non-commercial interest? It's good that the unworkable language on intangible benefits has been deleted but I'd just like to be sure what needs to be declared under the language that remains... Thanks, Bill On Nov 16, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: Hi, I am unclear whether these revisions were reviewed and approved by the OSC? If so, that should be stated clearly in the motion, that the deliverables are from OSC rather than any work team underneath that Steering Committee. If not, then OSC needs to approve them and send to us. Please help to clarify this. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:39 AM To: philip.sheppard@aim.be; ray@goto.jobs; stephane.vangelder@indom.com Cc: gnso-osc-ops@icann.org; gnso-osc@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS Colleagues, The first "Resolved" of the a.m. motion (see https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_november_motions <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_november_motions> ) reads: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables submitted by the GCOT and approved by the OSC and directs Staff to post the aforementioned document for thirty (30) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum. I wonder whether the GCOT has submitted and the OSC has approved the proposed revisions to section 5.0 in the version presented. To my knowledge the OSC approval was given including the DOI. In this case I'd like to suggest a friendly amendment as follows: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables submitted by the GCOT and approved by the OSC and directs Staff to post the aforementioned document for thirty (30) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum Philp's and Ray's advise would be helpful. There are still references to DOI left in the revision which I've removed (see attached). Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <<GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions without DOI 15 Oct 2010 redline (WUK_edit).doc>> *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************