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

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

George,

What's the real point of your tirade?

Participants on this list have become active
contributors to ICANN processes.  They have joined the
WHOIS WG as observers, they are participating in the
ALAC's RAA WG, they have sent through comments to the
Public Forums (RAA, .museum, domain tasting, new
gTLDs, NARALO, etc.) to a far greater degree than
members of any other constituency.

You're a member of the BC... so tell us, where is the
BC contribution on the topic of registrant
protections?  Where are their suggestions for
revisions to the RAA?  Where did you post your own
recommendations?  At least the people here give a damn
and make an effort.  That's more than can be said for
many of your peers.

How do you have the gall to criticize these volunteers
that are doing their best to stay informed and
contribute meaningfully while your own constituency
members are characterized more by their absence than
by any of their contributions?

Sure we have some kooks on this list, but that's the
consequence of having an open and publicly archived
discussion list -- something the BC doesn't have, does
it?  Apparently it also has no respect whatsoever for
the ICANN bylaws that call for operating to the
maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent
manner.

That lack of respect must have rubbed off on you as
your latest remarks are abusive in the extreme and
serve no constructive purpose.  Since when did you
need to resort to personal attacks in order to make a
point?  Get a grip.




--- George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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/
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/