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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I do know if we need a group hug. Seems kinky to me.

I thought it was a friendly tussle we were involved in.

In any case, I think we also have the issue to the rules we put out about the 
way in which SOI/DOI was checked at each meeting.  I think practices is already 
evolving in a different direction, so we may just want to adjust the rules to 
the way tit is being done.

I.e. we proposed that each person give an affirmative response at each meeting, 
whereas the practice, one i think I argued for but tried to implement after - 
being a good rule follower, is that a general question on SOI/DOI update be 
asked and that silence was a sufficient response.

a.



On 17 Sep 2010, at 07:14, Ray Fassett wrote:

> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>