Re: [ga] Staff Reports

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:00 p.m. 28/11/2005, Danny Younger wrote:
> Bret Fausett in a note to the ALAC list writes:
>
> "I'm also concerned about process, but I've bitten my
> blog tongue on that one until after we've sorted out
> the merits. I think you're right though that ICANN
> staff is too invested in this and cannot be objective.
> I've seen some of the reports they have been given to
> the Board, and they read a lot like the Q&A on the
> ICANN site. I think the Board should retain
> independent advice on this. The staff is trying to
> sell them on something, and at least from what I've
> seen, I do not believe the reports are objective or
> accurate."
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac/msg01349.html

I agree with what both Brett Fausett and John Levine are saying.

(commercial/and otherwise data mining, non-existence of "market forces", 
conflict of interest and bad process)

The ICANN staff has gone one bridge too far on this one. Recklessness than 
can only harm ICANN at this stage.

Even those who have long been keen to give ICANN the benefit of the doubt, 
surely for want of an palatable alternative, are now voicing consternation.

I would not be surprised if even ALAC will now come down on the side of the 
staff's critics, urging the Board to seek outside counsel.


-joop-