RE: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

I understand your POV, but we have already agreed that staff facilitate the
volunteer's work.  The do not advocate and cannot advocate on policy; their
only reason for participation is to facilitate volunteer's policy
development, i.e., turn it into proper legaleze...  That part is clear and a
non-issue to me.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 1:42 PM
To: Robin Gross
Cc: Ray Fassett; gnso-osc-ops; Avri Doria; Sam Eisner
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT
Call


So ... if a staffer has filed a SOI/DOI, and it factually discloses 
the staffer's interest in X, is the staffer free to advocate for X, 
and is the staffer then participating equally (overlooking the bit 
about the staffer being paid to participate, at random locations on 
the surface of the Earth) with the volunteers and elected (through the 
"bottom up, consensus driven, democratic manner") representatives of 
Stakeholder Groups, Advisory Groups, and Working Groups?

This is not where I want to go. We're chasing a non-problem and 
ignoring a known problem.

Eric