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) 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>>
Good catch Wolf. I see no problem in accepting the amendment as friendly. I am more perplexed at the references to the DOI that were still in the document you edited. Ray, Philip, could you please enlighten us as to whether those were just overlooked or whether the GCOT and the OSC planned to leave them in there? As a reminder, the aim of my motion is to completely remove the DOI obligations from the Op Procs as discussed. Stéphane Le 16 nov. 2010 à 11:39, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
Colleagues,
The first "Resolved" of the a.m. motion (see 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>>
<GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions without DOI 15 Oct 2010 redline (WUK_edit).doc>
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>>
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
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) 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 ***********************************************************
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 ***********************************************************
Hi On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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.
Ah. So there's an unwritten definition that maps with the deleted text. And unlike the DOI mechanism, failure to comply with the unwritten rule can result in suspension. Mildly Kafkaesque... Like the proxy provision, this really makes no sense to me. Leave aside the fact that serving on the Council usually would not count for beans in an academic setting, and indeed would more likely be held against someone in a conventional academic evaluation where engagement in policy or other earthly matters is regarded as a distraction from real work. Leave aside too the parallel situation in civil society, where serving on Council would be regarded by many as evidence one's been compromised, corrupted, etc (a reality in various CS settings, e.g. IGF…we are suspect in the eyes of many). Even if these weren't true and being on Council really did translate into being "elevated" in some way, then a) this would seem to apply to all Councilors, in which case what's the purpose of the individual declaration; b) it's not obvious how the prospect of elevation would relate to one's specific substantive judgement on anything, since presumably we'd enjoy equal fame and glory whether we vote for or against doing work prioritization and related initiatives; and c) I have no idea how to correctly state an "indirect interest...that may affect, or be perceived to affect" my judgment, not being privy at the front end to how unknown persons may someday choose to perceive or claim to perceive something I said. Mary and I have just been reelected by the NCSG membership so this would be an apt time to make any necessary revisions to my SOI. If someone from GCOT or elsewhere could please provide me with specific guidance on how I should revise http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/drake-soi-17nov08.html in order to avoid the possibility of maybe someday running afoul of unwritten rules based on someone's possible perception, I would really appreciate the help. In the meanwhile I will vote against the motion to approve this. Thanks, Bill
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
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) 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 ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** 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 ***********************************************************
participants (5)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
William Drake