Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Conflicting Language on Staff Roles
- To: gnso-osc-ops <gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Conflicting Language on Staff Roles
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:57:13 -0400
I think it is a fact that should be known. I do not accuse anyone of being
compromised in either practice or potential.
I see the reason for SOI and DOi as giving people a full picture of where a
person's comments come from. I make the assumption that everyone is
contributing their view of what is in the best interest of ICANN and the
Internet and am not accusing anyone of anything. But their perspective of what
that 'best' is, is modulated by the sum total of their involvement with all of
the aspects of the issue. I believe that the SOI/DOI is meant to fill in the
total picture and is as valid for the ICANN staff member participants as it is
for the volunteer participants.
On 13 Oct 2010, at 10:24, Ray Fassett wrote:
> Avri, is it your thinking that the possibility exists that an ICANN employee
> participating in an extra-curricular activity such as the IETF could result
> in a compromise of this individual's representation of ICANN's interests in
> an ICANN policy venue? If so, do you think this is more a possibility or a
> probability of occurrence?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:24 AM
> To: gnso-osc-ops
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Conflicting Language on Staff Roles
> On 1 Oct 2010, at 15:16, Ray Fassett wrote:
>> 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
>> 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.
> i mostly agree with this.
> with one addition: if that member of ICANN also happens to be involved in
> the IETF as a chair or an editor/contributor, not saying that this is the
> case n this case, then that too should be know - even though that is a non
> paying extra curricular activity.
> but i certainly agree that staff member's opinions should be heard, and in
> fact often are to the benefit of the entire enterprise.