At 12:32 PM -0400 8/15/14, Edward Morris wrote:
(in response to Avri:)
>- i tend to think of Staff as stakeholders too, though of a very
>different sort.  When the multistakeholder definition says 'everyone',
>forme, it has to mean them too.
>
>
>We may have to disagree here. I view ICANN staff as being privatized civil
>servants and the best civil servant is one who functions quietly and is
>rarely seen or heard. I find it particularly noxious to allow direct staff
>participation in this group, one that is designed to hold staff
>accountable.  It's the equivalence of allowing criminals yet to be
>sentenced participation in commissions creating sentencing guidelines -
>society, or in our case the community, should decide the rules, not those
>to whom the rules are to  apply.



Just on this point I want to weigh in supporting Edward here.  Staff should
not be *making* policy in any way.  Any sort of policy.  They facilitate
the policy-making process, but my understanding is that the SOACs are the
policy advisory sources, and the Board gives its thumbs-up/down.  Staff
just "makes the world go 'round" but should have no *substantive* input.
They need to be subject to systematic oversight.  This whole accountability
issue is about *them*!

It's fine for staff to be observers at the table, and to offer ideas that
others may have overlooked (it's always good practice to solicit input from
anyone who might have useful ideas to offer, and staff does have a unique
perspective on things), but they should not have any decision-making power
or influence beyond the content of their ideas.  That crosses the line into
conflict of interest.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.