Re: [ga] Re: Welcome to the World of International IT governance

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Edward,
 
This is how things are done here. The NCUC, IGF and most At Large groups and 
certainly the self appointed gurus of CS.  If they do not like an outcome, they 
simply extend the time and rally support for their desire and then close the 
door when they are satisfied.  ICANN fits right into the mold.  Watch for the 
extensions by fiat on the GAC review stuff.
 
Now your job, if you accept it, is to keep after your issue until the cows come 
home and you are labeled a kook and troll for pursuing it. Then you get to keep 
after it.  This is the only accountability option open.
 
The important accountability in life is to yourself.  These groups that have 
been formed are not even accountable to themselves, yet they throw stones at 
ICANN. And if you raise too much of a fuss anywhere, you will be censored and 
banned from the lists.  So be careful.


--- On Tue, 9/29/09, Edward Hasbrouck <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Edward Hasbrouck <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ga] Re: More information on Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve 
Accountability public comment period
To: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 11:51 AM



To be clear, my question is not "about the provision of more translated 
documents or the extension of a comment period to meet the
stated needs of the community."  Translation is an ongoing issue, but I 
have not seen any such publicly stated "need" with respect to this issue 
in particular, any more than dozens or hundreds of other issues.

More importantly, my question is *not* about the substance of the 
decision, which I would not oppose were a proposal properly made to the 
Board to open a second comment period, but solely about the identity of 
the decision-maker and the process and authority for their decision.

An ongoing problem with ICANN's process has been the confusion of 
substantive and procedural issues, and the erroneous assumption that a 
good-faith belief in the merits of the outcome is sufficient to justify 
any defects in the process by which that outcome was or is reached.

Sincerely,

Edward Hasbrouck

On 29 Sep 2009 at 11:31, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell 
<maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

> Dear Edward,
> 
> The decision to extend the comment period was taken with the agreement of
> our legal counsel. I will refer your question to the Office of the General
> Counsel since you believe this issue to be primarily about legal authority.
> 
> I must admit this is the first complaint I've had about the provision of
> more translated documents or the extension of a comment period to meet the
> stated needs of the community.
> 
> Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell
> 
> On 9/29/09 2:12 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> While these seem like reasonable grounds for a proposal to the Board for a
> second comment period (or for re-opening comment on an almost infinite
> number of previous decisions), I'm puzzled as to which member of staff had
> this authority, and on what basis.  Could you please send me the URL of the
> minutes of the Board decision delegating to a member of the staff the
> authority to overrule the decision of the Board setting the comment period
> at 60 days, or of the provision of the Bylaws you believe gives that member
> of the staff the authority to overrule such a Board decision?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Edward Hasbrouck
> 
> On 29 Sep 2009 at 10:47, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell
> <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Edward,
> >
> > The Board has not voted to extend the comment period. The comment period
> > has been extended by staff because translations of the proposed bylaws
> > were finalised too late to allow non-English language users to
> > participate fully in the consultation. The translated versions will be
> > posted this week in five other languages, and a further two months of
> > consultation time allowed to ensure everyone has the same chance to take
> > part.
> >
> > Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell
> >
> >
> > On 9/29/09 12:52 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > According to an announcement posted 28 september 2009:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm
> >
> > "Update, September 25, 2009: The public comment period on this proposed
> > bylaw change has been extended by two months, to 27 October 2009, to
> > allow users of the translated versions to prepare and submit their
> > views."
> >
> > The comment period which expired 25 September 2009 was set by the Board:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#8
> >
> > "Resolved (2009.06.26.24), that the following proposals, including the
> > possible Bylaws amendments proposed in the "Improving Institutional
> > Confidence: The Way Forward" report, be posted for 60 days for public
> > comment:..."
> >
> > I can't find any record of a vote of the Board re-opening this comment
> > period, or delegating authority to do so.
> >
> > Could you please send me the URL of the minutes recording that vote?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Edward Hasbrouck


----------------
Edward Hasbrouck
<edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://hasbrouck.org>
+1-415-824-0214