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

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi George

I think the Chair of the GNSO was perfectly clear in her actions.  See:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03743.html

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: 18 September 2007 18:59
> To: Avri Doria; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Questions for Joe Baptista / Eric Dierker,
> and why the GA list should be ended
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>