Re: [ga] ICANN Board unanimously approves .biz/.info/.org registry agreements by 13-0

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ted and all,

  Good idea, although harsh.  However sometimes harsh measures are
necessary in order to be effective. As the current staff has shown itself
to be less than reasonably effective, releasing them of their duties is
best for all concerned.  My guess is though, this will not be done.

Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:

> Hi Danny,
>
> It's the end of the year. Perhaps, it's time for ICANN to fire the staff
> members who fail to do their jobs properly. This includes pruning the human
> resources department, which screened these incompetent people in the first
> place.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ted
> Prophet Partners Inc.
> http://www.ProphetPartners.com
> http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>; "'Dominik Filipp'"
> <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>; "'Veni Markovski'" <veni@xxxxxxxx>; "'icann board
> address'" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "'General Assembly of the DNSO'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:53 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN Board unanimously approves .biz/.info/.org registry
> agreements by 13-0
>
> Roberto,
>
> I am sure that you will recall this language:  "The NC
> is responsible for ensuring that the Board is informed
> of any significant implementation or operational
> concerns expressed by any responsible party."
>
> Just as the NC was tasked with this set of
> obligations, so too do is the ICANN Staff tasked with
> the obligation to relay significant
> operational/implementational concerns to the Board
> that have been expressed by members of the public
> through the public comment process (all the moreso if
> Staff has taken it upon themselves to draft a summary
> of such comments for Board review).
>
> I am very concerned that the brevity of ICANN Staff
> summaries has failed to do justice to significant
> comments that were tendered in the expectation of
> actually being read by members of the ICANN Board.
>
> Specifically, I cite this comment put forward by the
> Intellectual Property Constituency submitted for
> consideration on 28 August:
>
> "The practice of "domain tasting" has attracted
> considerable attention and controversy in
> recent months and was one of the topics explored at a
> well-attended workshop at the ICANN
> meeting in Marrakech last June. We note with some
> concern that section 3.1(f) of the draft
> agreements would allow registry operators, without any
> scrutiny or review whatsoever, to
> provide a commercial service to identify "pre-tasted"
> domain names - those non-existent names
> within an particular gTLD that have attracted the most
> traffic during the preceding weeks or
> months. Without pre-judging the merits of such a
> service or its potential impact on
> cybersquatting, trademark infringement, and other
> adverse consequences that have already been
> observed to result from the "domain tasting"
> phenomenon, IPC is confident that such a service
> would at the very least merit some review under the
> new registry services procedure. Under the
> draft agreements it would apparently receive none.
> This is a significant flaw."
>
> According to Sao Paolo transcripts, the Board relied
> heavily upon the Staff summary (that in my view failed
> to properly report the above-mentioned concerns).   As
> such, the Board may well have acted without full
> knowledge of the breadth and scope of the issues that
> were iterated in the public comments.
>
> This is problematic, because the lack of Board-level
> transparency makes it impossible for us to know
> whether the concerns of the IPC and others received a
> fair hearing from members of the Board, or if instead
> they were, for all practical purposes, lost within the
> brevity of the Staff summary that failed to fully
> detail the operational/implementational concerns that
> were clearly raised by the community.
>
> My assessment is that a fair hearing of all these
> concerns did not happen.   The Board relied a upon a
> poorly drafted Staff summary that on the topic of
> traffic data merely pointed to concerns over personal
> identifying information and ignored the IPC concerns
> -- this then led to the Board believing that a "new
> restriction on the use of traffic data" dealing with
> personal identifiers was sufficient.  It was not.
>
> Concerns raised have not been addressed, and they
> remain unaddressed.
>
> The revised contract language is still deficient and
> you can bet that traffic data related problems will
> soon emerge.
>
> My advice:  don't rely upon the Staff to provide
> summaries.  Do the due diligence and and in the future
> read every comment even if it takes a long time(you
> can be sure that most active participants on the GA
> list did read every comment).
>
> regards,
> Danny

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827