Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 21 Oct 2016 4:11 p.m., "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Avri!
>
> example:
>
> while some staff collect money from Registries for ICANN budget.
>
SO: I think it's more of registries paying ICANN for service rendered though yes staff does follow-up on payments and the act of follow-up in itself is a service provided by staff and that's why there are penalties.

> other staff look for compliance performance of the very same Registries
> and even other staff works together with the same Registries to make changes in the policies that affect both, fees and compliance
>
> <Question>
>
> Are all this functions performed by staff working at arms length form each other, so as to avoid conflicts???? Are each of these staff groups free to make their own best decisions without interference from the others?
>

SO: I am neither for or against the question but I wonder where conflicts could occur since staff isn't the direct beneficiary in the three examples stated above. The beneficiary is either ICANN or the Registries.

If we must ask this then we should be more specific with the question. Something similar to below:

Are there any part of your work as staff where you see yourself as direct beneficiary?

Regards

> What do you think?
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8837 7176
> Skype: carlos.raulg
> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
> On 21 Oct 2016, at 8:02, avri doria wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> Thanks for the comment.
>> I have no clarity on what you mean by :
>>>
>>> down to earth “organizational conditions”
>>
>> And what question are you suggesting? Can you suggest text for a new
>> question, either as a new question or suggest and edit to an existing
>> question.
>> thanks
>> avri
>> On 21-Oct-16 08:43, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you Avri.
>>> I still miss the down to earth “organizational conditions” in which
>>> Staff works, and the fact that some parts or divisions of ICANN may
>>> come to different conclusions of what the best interest of the whole
>>> community is. ICANN has different roles and one of the areas of
>>> possible conflict i still miss in the document is conflicts of
>>> interested “between” those area of ICANN and how they will be solved
>>> so part of the Staff does not fall into those conflicts.
>>> Cheers
>>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>>> +506 8837 7176
>>> Skype: carlos.raulg
>>> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
>>> On 21 Oct 2016, at 1:26, avri doria wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This is coming to you at the last minute.
>>>> We are required to submit a status report, according to a template, for
>>>> the Hyderabad meeting.
>>>> Jordan and I have put one together. We need to submit by end of
>>>> business Friday 21 Oct in CA headquarters time (i.e. today).
>>>> The draft, open to comment, can be found in:
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e-YsDmDg8lYB0Fn3oq4yUDhe8WOzgKTlg9YgVx88d_w/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> A pdf is attached.
>>>> I plan to finalize the report later today.
>>>> thanks
>>>> avri
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ws2-staff_acct mailing list
>>>> Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-staff_acct mailing list
>> Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-staff_acct mailing list
> Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
>