Re: [ga] Questions for Joe Baptista / Eric Dierker, and why the GA list should be ended

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

--- Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18 sep 2007, at 07.24, JFC Morfin wrote:
> 
> > the so-called GNSO/GA approved by the GNSO includes t
> 
> I would like to make clear that the only thing the GSNO council  
> 'approved' was the proposal for the 'GA list' to try self govern  
> according to a set of by-laws and processes.
> 
> The council explicitly gave no judgement on any of the organizational
>  
> issues some people on the 'GA List'  may be discussing.  The GSNO  
> takes no position regarding an entity called 'GA' except to indicate 
> that no such entity currently exists as part of ICANN, though it did 
> historically, and that such an entity if it does currently exist,  
> does _not_ speak for ICANN or as any part of ICANN.
> 
> The 'GA List'  is an email list, under GNSO guidelines, open to all  
> subscribers and is maintained by ICANN for the purpose of discussing 
> GSNO and other ICANN related issues.

You've sidestepped the major issues, Avri, and failed to take
responsibility for your personal priorities in giving legitimacy to the
GA as an entity that is now being quoted in the press and being
confused for GNSO Council, as mentioned at:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg00138.html

Many of the recommendations of the LSE report:

http://www.icann.org/announcements/gnso-review-report-sep06.pdf

dealt with the visibility of the GNSO, for example,  Recommendation 11:

"The position of the Council Chair needs to become much more visible
within ICANN and to carry more institutional weight."

(see more on page 48 regarding the low visibility of the GNSO)

What does it say about your leadership when instead of you being quoted
by the press in relation to the GNSO:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136522-c,internetnetworking/article.html

they instead quote an entity that "does _not_ speak for ICANN or as any
part of ICANN." It represents an abdication of your responsibilities as
GNSO Chair to have reduced the visibility of the GNSO and its Chair
even further below what the LSE report found. 

Indeed, you made it a personal priority to raise the visibility of the
GA, despite others in Council believing it was not a best use of
Council time.

a) YOU put the motion on the table:

 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03769.html

b) Others suggested other matters were higher priorities:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03753.html
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03752.html
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03749.html

"It is clear we cannot respond to organisations that do not exist. The
Board has abolished the General Assembly of the DNSO."

c) Yet, you pushed forward, over those objections:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03750.html

"that is why i was hoping to deal with this quickly and in a way that
did not seem to create any de-facto realities"

Do you actually deny that you did a sloppy job, one that introduced new
"de-facto" realities that this non-existent entity is quoted in the
press as an alternative to the GNSO Chair (yourself) being quoted?
Notice no one is jumping to your defence, Avri, patting you on the back
that you've "done a great job" here, and "yeah, we'd like to see more
folks like Jeff Williams or Eric Dierker or Joe Baptista get quoted on
GNSO matters, ahead of the GNSO Chair."

At a minimum, I strongly suggest that you fix the mistakes you've made
when dealing with this matter "quickly" and creating new "de-facto
realities" by:

1. Renaming the GA List to something that will not cause confusion to
3rd parties (as I mentioned in point #4 of my email yesterday). Indeed,
take a look at the dictionary definition of "general assembly":

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/general%20assembly

"the legislature in some states of the U.S."

"The principal deliberative body of the United Nations, in which each
member nation is represented and has one vote."

"persons who make or amend or repeal laws [syn: legislature]"

to see why it was inevitable that your sloppiness in raising the
profile of the GA, by giving it de-facto legitimacy over the objections
of others, would lead to this outcome.

2. Put before Council a motion to create a new mailing list that is
open only to verified members of GNSO Constituencies (+ ALAC), to allow
discussion between *real* participants in ICANN without the noise from
the kooks.

3. Insist any "self-organizing" attempts go through the proper ICANN
channels, namely ALAC At-Large Structure Applications and Cerification:

http://alac.icann.org/applications/

4. Strongly contemplate and consider what the role of GNSO Council
Chair is, and whether you are meeting its requirements by your actions.
Perhaps you can recover from your mistakes. Indeed, Kieren McCarthy
once gave legitimacy to the non-existent "INEGroup" (Jeff Williams'
fictional entity):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10/29/ex_icann_ceo_outrages/

"We [INEGroup] again warned you over a year ago about most of these
problems, and all of them long before Sept 11. YOU Mike, and the ICANN
Board of Directors basically ignored those warnings. Many others also
warned of these same problems. YOU called them 'Kooks' in a Wired
article in July '99! Remember that Mike!?""

and of course now Kieren has a cushy job at ICANN. Or, perhaps ICANN's
positions are changing, and that while under the leadership of Mike
Roberts, INEGroup was considered "kooks", but under folks like Avri
Doria and Kiren McCarthy, these are entities that should be raised up,
above the GNSO Chair itself, in terms of visibility?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/