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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Definitely should not send message when waking up after 4 hours sleep before 
coffee.
my typos are worse than normal.


On 17 Sep 2010, at 07:36, Avri Doria wrote:

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

I did not think we needed a group hug.  
the pesky word 'not' seems to get lost sometimes.

> 
> 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.

ie. it seems that many groups have instituted the practice of just asking 
whether anyone has an SOI/DOI update to make.
while this is what I recommended in the committee, i tried to institute the 
practice as defined in the rule.
and nearly got my head handed to me by the WG.

so, the question is do we leave a practice people don't like that will not be 
followed or do we cange it to what the people seem to want.


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