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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to ask the WT members to think about whether recent ICANN staff
input to us (paraphrasing) that all ICANN employees and contractors are to
be representing ICANN interests at all times in ICANN policy venues is
satisfactory for us to point to as a reason why ICANN staff and contractors
are not required to have a written SOI.

Secondly, if DOI's are intended to be voluntary for everyone as the
individual need arises (rather than a required written document which is the
language we are discussing today) would this serve as a satisfactory tool as
well for ICANN employees and contractors to address Avri's concern of
disclosing an extra-curricular activity (such as participation in an IETF
venue in this example)?

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:57 AM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Conflicting Language on Staff Roles


Hi,

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.

a.


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
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
>