RE: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president?

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Much more diplomatically put, Tim.

I had understood David to mean only that John Jeffries is now the person to 
whom Compliance staffing questions should be directed and not that there is no 
current intention to fill the Director of Compliance position.  Although, if 
the latter is true, I would certainly like to know that.

________________________________
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:55 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president?

I would like to here the Board's thought about the recent direction in
Staffing. Also, I undertood David's earlier response regarding the
Compliance Diretor to mean that Compliance now reports to Legal and so
there is no intent to fill that position. Perhaps I misundertood, and
perhaps it isn't yet clear to Staff either.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president?
> From: "Rosette, Kristina"
> Date: Wed, March 09, 2011 8:32 am
> To: "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" >
>
> All,
>
> (With credit to Kevin Murphy at DomainIncite for breaking the story)  ICANN 
> has reportedly hired "a psychotherapist with a distinctly Buddhist bent who 
> has previously specialized
> in weight loss" as Vice President for Organizational Effectiveness.  
> http://domainincite.com/; http://www.icann.org/en/general/staff.html.
> ICANN has gone without a Director of Compliance for almost 9 months and the 
> GNSO Council is being told that no new policy work should be initiated 
> because of staff workload, yet
> ICANN focuses its resources on hiring a VP for Organizational Effectiveness?  
> Unbelievable and inexcusable.  Does anyone believe the organizational 
> effectiveness has improved since Mr. Levinson was hired?
> I propose we raise this example of misplaced organizational priorities with 
> the Board.  I'm willing to sacrifice my GAC question to do so.
> Comments?
> K
>
>
>
>
>