Re: [ga] FW: Fee for disproportionate deletes in proposed .biz contract
Veni Markovski wrote: At 03:07 AM 03.8.2006 '?.' -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:Veni Markovski wrote:Danny, I'm talking about the legal rights and duties of directors as provided and demanded by law. If a director has some sort of feeling that there is an "etiquitte" of some kind that prevents him or her from undertaking those duties or meeting those obligations than that director should seriously consider resigning. It is indeed sad that many ICANN directors seem to believe that their only source of information is that which is force fed to them by ICANN's staff.
And I also have the experience of suing ICANN (and winning.) Reading ICANN's pleadings is a quite revealing experience. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate for a corporation (ICANN) to require that communication with any given director pass through another director or executive officer. So you feel that ICANN ought to require that all information be received by a designated channel the receipt of information, digest it, and then hand the pre-digested material to a director? If so you might want to ask your legal counsel - not ICANN's counsel, his/her obligation is not to you - to explain your rights and duties under California law. If you or any other director choses to accept only such information as may be fed to you via staff and "proper channels" than that director is failing in his/her duty to make decisions that are both informed and independent. Moreover, directors are not permitted to simply rely on conclusions made by other, people - under California law - which governs every ICANN director - directors are permitted to rely on the conclusions of only a very few types of people - such as accountants. In all other cases each director much gather data, examine it, and reach his or her own independent decision. Yeah right. ICANN's published meetings of board discussions are nearly empty of real debate. And from my own experience with 2 1/2 years on the board, ICANN's email discussions are largely vacuous. It is very sad that ICANN's board does nearly everything in private. While I don't understand why you say "many" (and indeed don't know how you define "many"), I can speak for myself, and the minutes from our public meetings show explicit desire to engage in real discussion with the public. Really? I have *never* seen any real discussion between board members or of board members with the public at any board meeting since I left. I remember the dirty looks I got from other board members and the chair when I tried at board meetings to even ask a few questions. On the other hand, it's always better if the "public" was more constructive. It could be part of the problem, part of the solution, or part of the landscape. So I simply do not accept your assertion that we of the public are not providing "solutions". Perhaps you aren't seeing or hearing the "public"? There is a vast body of work out here that has discussed and debated, in great depth, a large number of solutions. Have you read the various academic works about auction and lottery systems for new TLDs? Have you read the discussions on the various grace periods and their use in 5-day domain speculation? Have you read the discussions on the relationship of registry cost to ICANN's fiat registry fee? etc etc Do you even read some of the good summaries, such as appear on Circle-ID? That list can go on and on. It would be wrong to characterize that vast body of work to be merely "complaints" - yes there are complaints - but there are also many well considered answers. Why are you not seeing or hearing these? --karl--
|