RE: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call
- To: "'gnso-osc-ops'" <gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call
- From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:52:56 -0400
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.
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
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
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.