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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Look folks, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here.  We're
going off on some tangents and I am ok with that.  But, let's keep to the
issues at hand, ones bounced back to us, with respect to the SOI:

.       Discuss inquiry regarding  SOIs for staff (resolve need) 
.       Discuss list of entities with which ICANN has a transaction,
contract, or other arrangement (confirm OGC advice and resolve need) 
.       Discuss Work Team member concerns about available forms for SOIs and
DOIs (resolve info collection process) 
.       Confirm need for written DOIs (address Councilor concerns about
compliance burdens) 
.       Discuss potential Work team recommendations regarding Council
meeting process questions (e.g., what should actually be required on each
call re: polling)

Do we need a group hug already??

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:34 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT
Call


Hi,

Eric if you have another issue you would prefer to work on, please convince
us and move us in that direction.

I understand you think my issue is irrelevant. I don't happen to agree. I
see it as a fundamental parity issue and those, for me, are always worth
arguing to the last breath.

a.

On 17 Sep 2010, at 00:15, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>