Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Actions from 22 Sept/Next Call 29 Sept
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Actions from 22 Sept/Next Call 29 Sept
- From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:01:46 -0700
Thank you for your comments. As we draft the language for WT consideration
we will try to address WT concerns, including those that you have expressed
here as well as in previous messages on this list.
On 9/22/10 3:38 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Julie,
> I must say that I tend to object to the way this is being put. It is as if
> Staff has refused to comply with a possible requirements and is now suggesting
> that we change the wording to accommodate that refusal.
> I think it is critical that staff meet the same requirements as everyone who
> participates in a meeting as was determined by the approved procedures, and
> that definitional spin on the word participant not be used to try and avoid
> such an obligation.
> As I have tried to explain many times, the SOI/DOI is not just for those who
> recommend policy, and GNSO does nothing more than recommend they are not
> decision makers, but it is on anyone who might contribute an idea that could
> end up becoming policy once it reached the approval stage. Anyone with an
> interest who speaks in a meeting, or who writes a line a text, can manipulate
> the meaning and thus the policy and it is imperative that everyones interest's
> be declared without exception.
> On 22 Sep 2010, at 14:24, Julie Hedlund wrote:
>> Topic Issue of Need for Staff SOI¹s
>> Action: Staff will draft language to attempt to address WT member concerns
>> expressed on the call. Focus will start with potential definitional language
>> changes to provide clarity on role of ICANN Staff and consultants not as
>> policy decision makers, but as neutral supporters of Council, Working Group,
>> Work Team, etc. efforts.
>> Actor: Office General Counsel (OGC)
>> Due Date: 29 September