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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

How would you handle contractors/consultants who have multiple employers in 
this proposal?

thanks

a.

On 13 Oct 2010, at 11:30, Ray Fassett wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>