> There hasn't been a bright line test for this - we have largely participated on an "honor system"
I understand and support the concept of and reasoning behind disclosure
for transparency. I don't understand an 'honor system' if there is no
honor code with guidance on how it is to be interpreted.
> if other interests are in fact being represented in our policymaking efforts, we need to know about it.
I strongly agree. I don't agree that the converse is true. That is, I
would prefer not to encumber routine participation by those who do not
represent other interests. Or at least make that as lightweight as
possible.
> I would be curious to hear what members think on these points.
I've given this quite a bit of thought. I see two approaches, neither
of which is the status quo:
1) Set up some set of tests/rules for when an SOI is necessary and
figure out how to communicate and enforce them.
2) Expand the member questionnaire to include all the SOI questions and
make it mandatory for everyone to keep it current.
(1) has the advantage of being minimally intrusive, but because these
get subtle/complex very fast, it opens the door to a lot of
discussion/misunderstanding - and that energy could be better directed
to our 'real' issues.
(2) is simple, but means some extra work for the people (like me) who
probably wouldn't meet a complex test for "SOI necessary". And that
might discourage some participation. It is stricter than the GNSO
requirement, but it eliminates ambiguity.
In either case, I don't think that SOIs replace the expectation that
members disclose any conflict of interest when undertaking a task or
posting an opinion. (It's not reasonable to expect that every member
read every SOI and remember it.) SOIs are a formal record. Reminding
peers when speaking/writing is basic courtesy, and the norm in many
other situations. (Such as participating in a public hearing, or
writing a letter to the editor.)
On balance, I support (2). Simple is better, and we should focus our
energy on issues of what our constituents need, rather than internal
process. It also gives people one place to look to find out about a
member. I think there are a couple of technological improvements and
process changes that can make it fairly painless.
a) Have updating (confirming if no change) the member questionnaire on
our NCSG webpages replace the current annual membership 'ping'.
b) Automatically post the answers as SOIs - eliminating the need for
members to have an ICANN wiki login. This also ensures that that the
information is consistent.
c) Remove the mailing list 'post without moderation' privilege when a
membership becomes unconfirmed (e.g. 13 months after last update). This
prevents inadvertent participation, and allows the moderators to reject
with "please update your membership questionnaire" so comments aren't
lost. Or to approve posts from non-members that are innocuous (e.g. a
meeting announcement from another group.)
To illustrate the pitfalls of (1), I think there could be an intensive,
reasoned (and unfortunately, lengthy) debate on which of the following
constitute 'policy making', and to what degree:
i) participation in the newsgroup - is there an activity level
threshold? Content?
ii) talking in a member conference call? Is just listening OK? How to
enforce 'listen only'?
iii) voting for any officer (since the officers influence policy)
iv) helping to edit a document that is driven by others, and submitted
to the membership for ratification
v) endorsing a document entirely written by others
vi) just being a member (as our positions often say 'representing mm
members', being a member endorses policy positions by default.)
In case others object to (2): For me, it's pretty clear that any of
these should require an SOI:
i) Running for or being appointed to office
ii) Participating in an formally-chartered working group
iii) Taking primary responsibility for drafting/editing a controversial
position paper
iv) Accepting group/ICANN funding (e.g. for conference attendance,
services or expense reimbursements)
v) Any situation where one has, or could be reasonably perceived to have
a conflict of interest. E.g., If employed by an entity that restricted
what employees could say even when not representing the employer, held a
contrary position to that of an employer, or had a stake in the outcome,
that should be disclosed, even if the member is speaking as an individual.
I'm not sure that these are exhaustive, but my conclusion is that it's
simpler to simply require everyone to keep a current SOI than to
discuss/augment them in detail. And to have a process for handling sins
of omission/commission... I don't think we should spend our time and
energy (which is a limited resource) on going down that path.
So, (2) - make SOIs mandatory for everyone, and make it convenient for
members to file/update them as part of their NCSG web profiles.
Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
On 06-May-13 16:35, Robin Gross wrote:
> On May 5, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Timothe Litt wrote:
>
>> On 05-May-13 18:10, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> Another reminder that anyone who wishes to contribute to NCSG policymaking should have filed a recent Statement of Interest with ICANN ("recent" = in the last year or sooner if material change).
>>>
>>> Here's the link for creating and maintaining GNSO Member Statements of Interests:
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>> I must have missed this requirement, other than it being required of those running for elected office in NCSG/NCUC or seeking appointment as representatives to other parts of ICANN.
> The GNSO (not just NCSG) requires anyone who participate in a GNSO working group, drafting team, council or other policymaking body to fill out the SOI form. The reasons for the requirement are accountability and transparency. Since "anyone" can participate in ICANN policymaking, these forms allow folks to see if one is advocating on their own behalf or if they represent a third-party or other interest in their policy advocacy efforts. Since our stakeholder group is responsible to represent the interests of non-commercial users exclusively, if other interests are in fact being represented in our policymaking efforts, we need to know about it.
>
>> What, exactly does "contribute to NCSG policymaking" mean? Being a member of NCSG? Does participating in the discussions on this list rise to the level of requiring one? Or does this apply only to those who participate in extra-NCSG forums? Or what is the threshold?
> There hasn't been a bright line test for this - we have largely participated on an "honor system" where if someone is advocating for policy positions to be taken by the NCSG that they take it upon themselves to fill out the SOI and declare their interests. Perhaps there should be a bright line threshold. Perhaps there should be more enforcement. I would be curious to hear what members think on these points.
>> Being curious, I followed the link. It requires an ID and password to create an SOI, but does not indicate how to obtain one.
> Send an email to: glen (at) ICANN.org to get the ID and password for the ICANN wiki where one fills out the SOI.
>> I looked at one that had been filed, and it seems to largely duplicate questions from the membership application.
> There may be some duplication, but the NCSG membership form is just for NCSG and only filled out once. The SOI is a GNSO-wide required form that should be kept current by all of those in the GNSO who wish to actively participate in ICANN policymaking. The SOI is an important tool for achieving more accountability and transparency in ICANN's policymaking process. NCSG expects these things from ICANN and so we should provide them in our own policymaking efforts.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>> Timothe Litt
>> ACM Distinguished Engineer
>> --------------------------
>> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
>> if any, on the matters discussed.
>>
>>
|
