+1 to this view.... so long as staff limit is strictly adhered to, however
from experience you find that what is written black and white may not be
what is practice. So why bait the sleeping dog in the first place ;)

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 15 Aug 2014 19:02, "Dan Krimm" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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.
>