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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron,

So the necessity and utility of any disclosure is what?

I can see getting a disclosure that the staffer tasked with turning WG 
written gorp into legaleze attended a law school that had a legal 
writing clinic and that the staffer actually took it for a grade, but 
why anything else?
I'm afraid I don't understand the substitution of universal-isms, of 
SOIs, of lists of contracts and contractors, of ... for solving, or at 
least identifying, actual problems of process and structure. It is as 
if real problems are too difficult, so hypothetical problems, made up 
issues, are better choices for make-work.
Eric

On 9/16/10 1:52 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:
> 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