Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Roberto,


----- Original Message ----
From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Since the changes to the GNSO structure, proposed by the GNSO Review WG and
the SIC, have been approved by the Board, there is the concrete possibility
of creating a constituency for registrants. Creation of new constituencies
has even been encouraged last year.


You forgot to mention the total number of new constituencies that have been 
created since that time. Let me help you. The total number 
was....*drumroll*......wait for it..........you know what it is.......oh, the 
suspense is killing me........

Yes....it must be.....

Zero! 

http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm

Or just go to http://gnso.icann.org/ and read the left-hand column list of 
constituencies, which has been unchanged. In Roberto's world, he'll point to 
some "process" and think that that's a solution, and then he can wash his hands 
clean of the problem. It's funny reading Roberto's bio at ICANN:

http://www.icann.org/en/biog/gaetano.htm

"He served as one of the first chairs of the DNSO General Assembly and has 
focused his efforts in recent years on bringing to life a constituency for 
individual users and registrants."

And all that focus has led to the results of....wait for it.....zilch! Now 
re-read the quote from above, it's pass the buck on to someone else, let them 
do the heavy lifting, the wasting away of years in futile efforts. Even if one 
obtains a constituency, it would be an impotent and emasculated group, given 
the hoops that one must jump through to get both staff and Board approval, not 
to mention the approval from other stakeholder groups/constituencies who are 
captured (I left the BC for good reasons). No thanks.

You should rewrite that bio, to talk about hotels, all expense paid ICANN 
holidays, etc., as that would actually show the *results* of the past few 
years, not the failed goals. 

I recall when things were better, when I could simply email Vint, get a reply 
within a few minutes about a serious issue, they'd research it and get real 
results. It was the results that mattered, e.g.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/

finding a serious bug in contracts. He cared about results (even if he and I 
disagreed on policy issues from time to time). In Roberto's world, results 
don't matter. Process is hidden behind by the Board in order to not have to 
explain results, to avoid accountability. Process like "our Board got an 
executive compensation advisory specialist to confirm that paying ICANN staff 
salaries that are far above the comparables for other non-profits is AOK." 
Silly.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090105_icann_for_profit_companies_comparables/

Since Roberto ducked last week's direct questions:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg03949.html

about the Ombudsman, here's another chance. Why isn't the Board reviewing the 
performance of the Ombudsman? It's a tough question, yes, but important.

Or, would you be more likely to answer if we lobbed a few softballs, like what 
kind of food one can expect in Colombia at the ICANN feasts, or what the thread 
count will be of the hotel sheets at ICANN board private retreats (ICANN Board 
Slogan = "More Retreats Than the French Army") will be?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/