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

[Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>]

Danny,
you have several key points in your email to Roberto. See below with 
some comments.

> From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Roberto,
>
> 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.

I don't share this concern. The usual way people are trying to 
explain something they don't like at ICANN, is to blame the staff. 
You make no exlusion from this rule. I haven't been able to find the 
real reasons so far in such claims. You also consider that there are 
some magic staff summaries, which are the only reading about problems 
discussed. In fact directors have access to a number of documents 
before each vote that requires knowledge of the issues discussed.

> [ cut ]
>
> 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.

That's not a fair conclusion. The scripts from the meeting on Friday 
show a number of Board directors making comments on the concerns you 
mention. Further to that, it was not the first time to discuss that topic.

> [cut]
> Concerns raised have not been addressed, and they
> remain unaddressed.

Actually they were addressed, but the problem is that you seem to not 
like the way they were addressed.

> [cut]
>
> 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).

That goes back to what you think generally about the ICANN staff. I 
don't agree with your advise. A friendlier version of your advise 
would have started with "don't rely ONLY upon the staff to provide 
summaries". By not including the word "only", you make a general 
statement that the staff is not good enough to provide summaries to 
the Board. You, and others, consider that spending half time of the 
directors' lives on ICANN matters, is not enough. I think that gives 
directors pretty good understanding of what are the different views. 
If the directors were reading only summaries, then they would have 
spent no more than 5 % of their time on ICANN issues, and not the 50 
% they actually spend.



Sincerely,
Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com

check also my blog:
http://blog.veni.com