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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I understand you don't want to bogged down in this.

However, i do not think we can avoid that since the issue goes beyond just this 
groups recommendations.

The SOI/DOI issue is not only related to the Council Operations, but is also 
related to WG modalities.  This group can only address council issues, whereas 
the PPSC WGWT needs to address WG issues.  Both groups have accepted the same 
text.

I do not see how one group can now decide to fix the issue unilaterally for 
both groups.

This can only be done at the Council level or by a group designated to deal 
with emerging issues from the wok done by the OSC and PPSC.  The council, as I 
understand it, is still discussing how to deal with this issue and I do not 
understand our group having anything to say about it until they have made their 
decision on how it should be dealt with.

a.



On 13 Oct 2010, at 10:14, Ray Fassett wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>