RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Conflicting Language on Staff Roles

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, still alive and looking forward to our call later today.  I think our
primary agenda item is to re-visit the current language in the RoP that is
causing the confusion with regards to written documentation of DOI's and see
if we can reach consensus on a recommendation today to modify this language
for OSC review.  I would prefer not to get bogged down on the procedural
aspect of our WT doing so, as we have discussed this, unless the sentiment
of group as a whole has changed since our last teleconference meeting.
 
Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:16 AM
To: ray@xxxxxxxxx; ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-osc-ops] Conflicting Language on Staff Roles

Ray,

Looking to your last sentence:  are you still alive, and will you chair the
meeting today? 

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Ray Fassett
Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Oktober 2010 21:16
An: 'Eric Brunner-Williams'
Cc: 'gnso-osc-ops'
Betreff: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Conflicting Language on Staff Roles


Eric, let me know if I am grasping this or not.

The specific, real life, example you are providing is one where the Chair of
the WT allowed the ICANN staff liaison to vigorously advocate a
position...maybe what Avri terms as "championing".

Now, Chairs are people, each with their own style and approach.  Certainly a
Chair is to be impartial so let's assume this was case with the Chairperson
of the real life example you have brought forth so as not to co-mingle
different issues.

My thoughts on what you have shared is that the person from ICANN staff that
vigorously supported a specific position should be allowed to do so SO LONG
AS it is understood this individual is representing the interests of his/her
employer, being ICANN.

Ok, now shoot me...but before you do, why shouldn't people employed by ICANN
not be allowed to voice their opinion?  Is it supposed to be that everyone
in the world is allowed to participate in ICANN policy to inherently voice
an opinion unless you take a job with ICANN?  I might answer this by saying,
no the person can still have a voice even if employed by ICANN but it must
be understood, at all times, that their position is on behalf and
representative of ICANN interests.

Ok, now you can shoot me :)

Ray 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 4:59 PM
To: Ray Fassett
Cc: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Conflicting Language on Staff Roles


Ray,

To follow up on my oral comments on the importance of keeping staff 
from becoming participants ...

An example.

During the course of the FastFlux WG, before the initial Chair, Mikey 
O'Conner decided for reasons of his own to end his involvement, and 
before I too, decided, for reasons of my own, to end my involvement, 
and prior to the point in time when Avri became the interim or acting 
Chair * , there was a recommendation made by a participant, who 
incidentally was the GNSO Council's Liaison, and who, for reasons of 
his own, regularly reported to the Council that no process problems 
existed in the conduct of the Working Group ** , THAT ALL REGISTRARS 
BE REQUIRED TO STAFF THEIR OPERATIONS 24/7/365.

The policy was a recommendation to change the Registrar Accreditation 
Agreement. It was understood by all the Working Group participants to 
have cost consequences highly adverse to almost all non-shell, and 
non-highly automated registrars. The rational for the 24/7/365 
proposal was that bag guys worked all hours, therefore registars had 
to staff their operations with staff sufficiently sophisticated to 
correctly, and without liability, performing takedown requests, 24/7/365.

The ICANN Staffer assigned in a support function to the Fast Flux PDP 
Working Group and styled as a security expert joined the GNSO Council 
Liaison in vigorous advocacy of this proposal.

Overlooking the issues that the RAA does not require registrars to 
accept credit cards, and therefore the fraud risk of the credit card 
industry, fraudulent registrations for the purposes of creating Fast 
Flux Hosting Systems (FFHS) or individual resources for FFHS, and the 
RAA does not require registrars to provide a web with automated domain 
creation or NS record modification capabilities (or the same 
functional capabilities through automated email, or other means), and 
the tremendous correlation of FFHS registrations and specific 
registrars, the ICANN Staffer advocated a change to the RAA to obtain 
a 24/7/365 staffing liability for all registrars.

I want this clearly understood. Changes to Consensus Policy only arise 
from the Consensus forming body. ICANN is not a Stakeholder in the 
ICANN. The opinions of the receptionist at Marina del Ray, General 
Counsel, CEO, and each Board member individually and collectively, 
including the Board Chair, have no authority, arise from no 
Stakeholder, and cannot affect Consensus Policy formation.

I appreciate the comments during the call by Liz, that some staff have 
domain specific expertise. However, no appeal to authority may be 
offered as a substitute for the Consensus Process of the Stakeholders 
in developing Consensus Policy. There are more than enough problems of 
accountability and transparency without adding Letters of Marque for 
individuals with very high opinions of their acumen and awareness, 
particularly those who can't tell a hawk from a handsaw.

Eric


* Communications to the then GNSO Council Chair functioning as the 
Interim Chair of the FastFlux PDP Working Group did not successfully 
convey the process issue represented here, and to the best of my 
recollection my problem statement was dismissed as "personality 
conflicts".

** It is possible there may exist a less accurate rapporteur than Mike 
Rodenbaugh, in theory.