[council] RE: [At-Large] Respectful Online Communication and Behavior
Karl, > In conclusion, I am once again stunned that ICANN permitted > money to be spent in the creation of this document. I don't think that the ICANN Board should go into details like what document the Ombudsman should or should not develop and publish. I am convinced that the actual system, that gives the Ombudsman latitude in the way he/she will use her/his budget is appropriate. Best regards, Roberto > -----Original Message----- > From: at-large-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:at-large-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of Karl Auerbach > Sent: Wednesday, 13 May 2009 20:47 > To: At-Large Worldwide > Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > ccnso-council@xxxxxxxxx; louie@xxxxxxxxxxx; Disspain; > janis.karklins@xxxxxxxxx; jun@xxxxxxxxxx; Steve Crocker; > Charles A. (Chuck) Gomes; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; policy@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Respectful Online Communication and Behavior > > Frank Fowlie wrote: > > > I don't believe that there is anything strange or naïve in the > > expectation that participants in an organization which represents a > > global community would conduct themselves at a level of > discourse and > > behaviour that includes respectful communication. > > You seem to have entirely missed the point of my note. > > Yesterday I visited the home of Thomas Jefferson, the man who > drafted the United States' Declaration of Independence. The > Declaration was drafted in the most respectful of terms but > it stated with clarity and force an utter repudiation of the > king's position. > > The core of your document is not respect but self emasculation: > > Your document tells us to "exercis[e] independent judgment > based solely on what is in the overall best interest of > Internet users and the stability and security of the > Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of > personal interests and the interests of the entity to which > an individual might owe their appointment." > > ICANN's board members do in fact have a fiduciary duty that > somewhat resembles the above. But we are not board members. > > And ICANN employees are required in the course of their jobs > to follow the policies set forth by ICANN's board. But we > are not ICANN employees. > > Those of us who argue for positions within ICANN are entitled > to argue for our own values. We may use such means of > expression as we feel most appropriate. > > Further, many of us are attorneys who represent clients in > these matters. It would be a violation of our professional > obligations to our clients were we to set aside their > interests and substitute your "overall best interest of the > Internet user" standard. Others, who work form corporate > "stakeholders" within ICANN would often be in dereliction of > their own duties to their employers were they to set aside > the interests of their employer. > > Your note is out of touch with the ICANN that exists. ICANN > is a system of economic regulation of the domain name space. > ICANN does virtually nothing that pertains to the "stability > and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers". > > In conclusion, I am once again stunned that ICANN permitted > money to be spent in the creation of this document. > > --karl-- > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <<attachment: winmail.dat>>
|