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

[Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>]

At 12:12 PM 03.8.2006 '?.'  -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Veni Markovski wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'm talking about the legal rights and duties of directors as 
> provided and demanded by law.
>
> If a director has some sort of feeling that there is an "etiquitte" 
> of some kind that prevents him or her from undertaking those duties 
> or meeting those obligations than that director should seriously 
> consider resigning.

It seems you misread me. The difference of opinion is that I don't 
think my ideas are incorrect.  What you just wrote above is pretty 
much into my undersanding of the duties of directors. But I don't see 
anything in the bylaws about directors giving "guidance" to Danny, or 
anyone, except through a proper process.

> > > 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.
>
> Experience from being on the board and observation of subsequent directors.

Well, when you say "many... directors ... seem to believe..." that is 
not about the time when you were on the Board, or you'd have used 
past tense, right? That's why I said that I am not sure why you 
believe the current directors believe that. In your current response, 
you again point back in time.

> > > 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.
>
> So you feel that ICANN ought to require that all information be 
> received by a designated channel the receipt of information, digest 
> it, and then hand the pre-digested material to a director?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I am just saying, that if 
someone wants a response from an organization, he or she should 
address the organization. E.g. when someone sends a letter or a fax, 
they will be stamped "received at...", and will enter into a database 
system to be properly handled.

> If you or any other director choses to accept only such information 
> as may be fed to you via staff and "proper channels" than that 
> director is failing in his/her duty to make decisions that are both 
> informed and independent.

Karl, now you are talking about accepting information. Danny was 
refering to obtaining from me the opinion of ICANN. Let's put some 
order here. I want and I have always received information through 
different channels. But I am not ICANN. I don't represent ICANN, and 
e-mails to me can not serve as officially informing ICANN on anything.

> > > 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.
>
> Yeah right.  ICANN's published meetings of board discussions are 
> nearly empty of real debate.

I don't agree. The .xxx and the .com are pretty full, and if you see 
what people are debating - exactly those topics.

> > 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.
>
> Really?  I have *never* seen any real discussion between board 
> members or of board members with the public at any board meeting since I left.

Would you like to go through the minutes? I remember what I said.


> Have you read the various academic works about auction and lottery 
> systems for new TLDs?  Have you read the discussions on the various 
> grace periods and their use in 5-day domain speculation?   Have you 
> read the discussions on the relationship of registry cost to ICANN's 
> fiat registry fee?  etc etc  Do you even read some of the good 
> summaries, such as appear on Circle-ID?

If you take a look at the time I've spent on this board, you'd find 
out that I have read more than necessary.

> It would be wrong to characterize that vast body of work to be 
> merely "complaints" - yes there are complaints - but there are also 
> many well considered answers.

It would be equallyt to characterize "many" of the directors as 
whatever-you-said-above.


> Why are you not seeing or hearing these?

Probably because they are not being heard well on this list? The 
problem is the vocal people occupy space, and the ones who can 
actually contribute often are left behind.

veni