ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: No current suspensions,,,, was:Re: [ga] Public Comment: Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability

  • To: debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: No current suspensions,,,, was:Re: [ga] Public Comment: Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability
  • From: Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 19:34:31 -0400

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Hi
> As List Monitor at the time of Jeff Williams' suspension, I followed the GA
> rules exactly. In my opinion the suspension is valid and should be
> maintained.  As far as I am aware, Jeff Williams will have his posting
> privileges reinstated on the 5th of August 2009.

Nonsense. You decision was overruled by myself - your co-list monitor and
the chair. The complaint against Jeff Williams by an ICANN employee was
ruled to be frivolous and vexatious.

Indeed Jeff claims that the ICANN employee used to work for a Nazi were true
and accurate.

You acted on your own dear. You have no support in favor of you other then
ICANN staff who's primary interest is in covering this up.

joe baptista

> Regards
> Debbie
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Hugh Dierker
> *Sent:* 02 August 2009 05:07
> *To:* ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry
> *Subject:* Re: No current suspensions,,,, was:Re: [ga] Public Comment:
> Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability
>    Dear Glen,
> In light of your notice of this thread. In furtherance and keeping with the
> intent and spirit of ICANN's changes to increase Public Comment and create a
> more inclusive environment:
> The suspension from the GA list of Jeff Williams was actuated by a since
> resigned monitor.
> It was contrary to our best rules of procedure.
> However it was allowed until this time.
> While our rules have many questionable processes and are lacking in broad
> support, they are in fact the best we have since the passage of
> resolution  20070906-2 of the GNSO Council, which was passed at our request
> to self organize.
> As is obvious from the original title of this thread, ICANN is dynamic and
> changing.  In order for there to be an effective public comment forum
> specifically for the GNSO we must start fresh with no suspensions.
> Sincerely,
> Eric Hugh Dierker
> --- On *Wed, 7/29/09, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [ga] Public Comment: Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve
> Accountability
> To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 1:39 AM
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm
> Public Comment: Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability
> 27 July 2009
> Two proposed accountability measures have been posted by direction of the
> Board for 60 days of public comments, from 23 July 2009 through 25 September
> 2009. This is the latest step in the Improving Institutional Confidence
> process.
> The first bylaw revision is a new mechanism called the "Community
> Re-Examination Vote". It would allow the ICANN community to request the
> Board to re-examine a Board decision taken by resolution.
> The second proposal would revise one of the existing bylaws and replace the
> independent third-party review process with a more robust process, the
> "Independent Review Body".
> These proposals represent a significant step forward in ICANN's already
> considerable accountability. The draft bylaw changes have been developed in
> response to community input to the President's Strategy Committee over the
> last 12 months.
> You are invited to review the proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws linked
> to on this page and provide your input to the public comments forum.
> Details of proposed changes
> 1. Community Re-Examination Vote
> The ICANN Bylaws currently set forth three mechanisms for accountability
> and review of ICANN Board decisions: (1) the Reconsideration Process,
> Article IV, Section 2; (2) the Independent Review Process, Article IV,
> Section 3; and (3) the Office of the Ombudsman, Article V.
> The objective is for this procedure to allow the ICANN community to come
> together through the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees and
> vote for the Board to re-examine a Board decision taken by resolution.
> The proposed Bylaws setting forth the Community Re-Examination Vote are
> available here [PDF, 53K].
> 2. Independent Review Body
> ICANN has an Independent Review Process in place, as established at Article
> IV, Section 3 (1) of the bylaws:
> "ICANN shall have in place a separate process for independent third-party
> review of Board actions alleged by an affected party to be inconsistent with
> the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws."
> The provider for the current Independent Review Process is the
> International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). (More detail about the
> Independent Review Process is available here:
> http://www.icann.org/en/general/accountability_review.html)
> The existing review process is limited in scope, and focuses mainly whether
> the Board has followed ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws when
> rendering a decision. The current review process relies mainly upon the
> concepts of fidelity and fairness.
> However, following extensive and sustained public input on this issue, the
> PSC recommended a broadening of the review process to allow for review of
> the rationality of Board decisions as well.
> The proposed changes that would create the Independent Review Body would
> allow reviews of both the rationality and the fairness of Board decisions.
> These concepts are described under the rubrics of Fairness, Fidelity and
> Rationality in the May 2009 the staff report ("Improving Institutional
> Confidence: The Way Forward" (
> http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/iic-the-way-forward-31may09-en.pdf [PDF,
> 112K]).
> The proposed amendments to the Bylaws setting forth the IRB process are
> available at
> http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-bylaw-revisions-iv-3-redline-27jul09-en.pdf[PDF,
>  153K]. Please note: the attached document with the proposed bylaw text
> is presented in 'track changes' version to allow you to compare the proposed
> text to the existing text of the bylaws.
> ICANN's legal staff expects the procedures and rules for the existing
> Independent Review Process would broadly serve the expanded scope of the IRB
> but that some revisions will be required to make them conform fully to the
> IRB bylaw provisions, if adopted.
> Background
> The proposed new accountability measures are based on recommendations made
> to the Board by the President's Strategy Committee (PSC) in February 2009.
> At the Mexico City meeting in March 2009, the Board directed staff to
> produce implementation analysis of the PSC proposals.
> On 31 May 2009, the report "Improving Institutional Confidence: The Way
> Forward" (
> http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/iic-the-way-forward-31may09-en.pdf) was
> published for information and discussion ahead of the Sydney meeting in June
> 2009. This report included two detailed proposals for implementing the PSC's
> recommended bylaw changes to modify or create accountability and review
> mechanisms.
> At the Sydney meeting in June 2009, the Board acknowledged this report and
> directed the opening of a 60-day period of public consultation on the
> proposed bylaw changes.
> (For more information about the PSC's work, including previous documents
> and public comment periods, please visit: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/.
> Information about the PSC itself is at http://www.icann.org/en/psc)
> Deadline and How to Submit Comments:
> Public comments on these proposals will run for 60 days, from 27 July 2009
> through 25 September 2009.
> To submit comments:
> Comments are welcome via email to: 
> iic-proposed-bylaws@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc529.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=iic-proposed-bylaws@xxxxxxxxx>
> .
> To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be publicly
> posted at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/iic-proposed-bylaws/
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc529.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> http://gnso.icann.org

Joe Baptista

PublicRoot Consortium
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>