Re: [ga] FW: Fee for disproportionate deletes in proposed .biz contract

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"On the other hand, it's always better if the "public" was more
constructive. It could be part of the problem, part of the solution,
or part of the landscape.

veni "

We are constructive Veni, we just have different definitions of the word. To
ICANN board members in the past and so far, currently, constructive means
agreeing with ICANN policy decisions. To most of us it actually means trying
to improve on it. But first, ICANN's BoD would have to admit there is a need
for improvement. Eliminating the GA was not a step forward to communicating
with the public better for example.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Veni Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Veni Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Fee for disproportionate deletes in proposed .biz
contract


> At 03:07 AM 03.8.2006 '?.'  -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >Veni Markovski wrote:
> >>Danny,
> >>1. The proper channel to ask ICANN questions about its activities,
> >>is through the Chair of the Board, or the President.
> >>
> >>2. Asking individual directors for their "guidance" is not the
> >>right way to deal with an organization.
> >
> >I don't know where you got these incorrect ideas.
>
> Karl,
> we have difference of opinions on that, and I believe it's a good sign.
>
> >Every individual board member is equal in authority and equal in
> >responsibility.
>
> We don't have difference of opinions here.
>
> >It is entirely appropriate for any person to raise any question to
> >*any* board member.  Indeed, *every* board member is obligated to
> >seek out facts relevant to the corporate activities.
>
> Also agree.
>
> >Whether a director answers a question is a choice that each director
> >must make based on the circumstances and the director's evaluation
> >of how an answer would affect the corporation.
>
> Agree.
>
> >Thus, for example, a director would most likely chose to refuse to
> >answer a question regarding litigation.
>
> Agree.
>
> >But on the other hand, for complex matters that are to come before
> >the board, a director can learn much about an issue by engaging in
> >discussion with concerned members of the public.
>
> Agree. In fact, if you go into the records of the first meetings I
> attended as a director, you will find me saying that I ask the
> community to come to me and talk about the problems.
>
> >It is indeed sad that many ICANN directors seem to believe that
> >their only source of information is that which is force fed to them
> >by ICANN's staff.
>
> I don't know why you believe they believe that.
>
> >Furthermore, it would be inappropriate for a corporation (ICANN) to
> >require that communication with any given director pass through
> >another director or executive officer.
>
> Oh, no, no... Disagree completely. I never said that communication
> with any DIRECTOR should pass through another director - be that the
> chair, or through the CEO. I am talking about communication with the
> organization.
>
> >Moreover, directors are not permitted to simply rely on conclusions
> >made by other, people - under California law - which governs every
> >ICANN director - directors are permitted to rely on the conclusions
> >of only a very few  types of people - such as accountants.  In all
> >other cases each director much gather data, examine it, and reach
> >his or her own independent decision.
>
> And again - if you go to the records of the Board minutes, you will
> see that in some of the most heated debates, directors have not
> "simply relied" on these.
>
> >Part of this, I believe, is that certain directors spread, perhaps
> >unknowingly, the kind of incorrect information that you seem to be
> >reflecting.
>
> I think that you'd agree that's not what I was referring to (as
> pointed above).
>
> >It is sad that many of ICANN's directors feel that it is
> >inappropriate to engage in real discussions with the
> >public.  Complex issues can only be understood through the kind of
> >give and take that most of ICANN's directors avoid.
>
> Karl,
> While I don't understand why you say "many" (and indeed don't know
> how you define "many"), I can speak for myself, and the minutes from
> our public meetings show explicit desire to engage in real discussion
> with the public. Now, I am not as good as some of my colleagues in
> communicating with the whole public, but at least I've tried. I don't
> also remember other directors avoiding contacts with the public.
> On the other hand, it's always better if the "public" was more
> constructive. It could be part of the problem, part of the solution,
> or part of the landscape.
>
> veni
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/406 - Release Date: 8/2/06
>
>