Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

[sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Dear George,

It's so nice to see that you finally have come around to seeing things the
way I (and so many others) have been seeing things re: ICANN since 2000!
You brief stint in the BC was finally rewarded with the disillusionment I
(or Joop, or Danny, or Karl, anyone else) might easily have predicted if
you'd paused to ask any of us when you showed up on the GA list all
gung-ho for the BC. Anyway, nice to see you've finally come onside...
better late than never, I guess.

Peace!

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

> 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/
>