ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [ga] ICANN and censorship (and ombudsman ineffectiveness)

  • To: GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN and censorship (and ombudsman ineffectiveness)
  • From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:17:25 -0700 (PDT)

Hi folks,

Just to followup on my prior post which referenced the very serious breach by 
the Ombudsman of confidentiality (let alone raising free speech questions)

> https://omblog.icann.org/?p=192

I note my most recent attempt to comment on the blog has been censored (or put 
into a "moderation" queue, to presumably be examined by the thought police to 
determine whether it's "acceptable to them"). I called for an audit of the 
Ombudsman, especially in light of the fact that in *5* years, the number of 
complaints that he's actually resolved is miniscule, barely registering on the 

Here's my uncensored comment:

--- uncensored comment begins ----------
Kieren: People have the right to be “aggressively critical” whenever they see 
something wrong happening. It’s people who are wrongdoers that benefit by 
attempting to stifle that critical speech. Perhaps one day you’ll have greater 
sophistication and be able to appreciate why free honest and truthful speech is 
valued in our society, far above “false civility.” Kent Crispin of ICANN 
appears to have that sophistication. Yesterday he wrote:


“They undermine and demean the extremely valuable contributions of serious 
longtime ICANN critics like Danny Younger, George Kirikos, and others. (Just 
for the record — I really respect the contributions of these critics, and 
sometimes I agree with them. I believe that sentiment is shared by many people 
on the ICANN staff.)”

I am sure those “others” would include Robin, Avri, and Milton.

As for Frank, there’s been a serious breach of confidentiality of a complaint 
here. There was no reason for this blog post at all, and certainly not the 
examples that he used coming directly from someone’s formal complaint. That’s 

Yesterday the Ombudsman released his annual report. Page 18 of it had a graph 
at the bottom right, see:


In 5 years, the number of complaints marked “resolved” barely registers on the 
graph. Eyeballing it, it seems to be under 30. This contrasts with over 1500 
where the Ombudsman declined to get involved. That says it all about his lack 
of effectiveness, and lack of true independence from ICANN. While the Ombudsman 
claims “neutrality”, he does know that his paycheque comes from ICANN. If he 
were to be truly critical of ICANN in his findings (e.g. look at comment #16 
and read the Ombudsman File 09-29 and see how unsatisfactorily that was 
handled), he might find his continued employment at risk. An independent audit 
should be done to determine the effectiveness of the Ombudsman, as part of the 
audit of ICANN that others like CADNA have called for recently.
--- uncensored comment ends ----------


George Kirikos

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