Thanks Eric. I think what you may be suggesting is that, as it pertains to
staff assignment of individuals for policy support, a blanket statement that
all such individual involvement will remain policy neutral solves the issue
of why staff support personnel are not required to complete and SOI as
contained in the Rules, as it would be duplicative. Am I close?
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 6:23 PM
To: Ray Fassett
Cc: 'Liz Gasster'; 'gnso-osc-ops'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Robert Hoggarth'; 'Ken
Bour'; 'Sam Eisner'
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT
Call
Ray,
I really have no interest in the hypothetical conflicts of interest of
ICANN staff or consultants, and with a very few exceptions, hold all
of the staff and consultants I know in very high regard, for their
competency and their disinterest, relative to the rather venal
assembly of interest advocacy that exists in, if not dominates, the GNSO.
However, the Security weenies, the abrasive Dave Piscitello, the
absurdly loud (and mercifully departing) Greg Rattray to name names,
are problems. They each act as if the "security" mission has made them
independent actors, and then proceed to blunder about badly.
It doesn't matter a whit if persons are motivated by lucre, academic
advancement (the Milton Meuller rule), or revolutionary altruism.
Pursuit of a hypothetical -- the "what if someone asks, we SOI'd/DOI'd
all the industry advocates, did we SOI/DOI the Staff?" just seems like
shutting our eyes to what can be seen and is not at all hypothetical.
The problem is to construct a question about interest and advocacy
that is likely to cause an ideological advocate, or someone committed
to the full-employment that security theater has produced in the 9/11
hysteria zone, to pause and take stock of whether s/he is policy
neutral, or a policy advocate.
Note Well: Mechanism frequently _is_ policy.
Eric