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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Veni, > >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.

You agree here, yet in your previous email you said that the proper way was
not to address board members individually. Have you had a change of heart or
loss of memory?

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
>
>