Re: [ga] ICANN Board unanimously approves .biz/.info/.org registry agreements by 13-0
Note - this message is relatively long. I decided to write it, because Danny continiously blames the staff and the board for anything that happens, which does not fit into his universe. Having been on the board for three years, I know how easy and tempting it is to blame the staff for everything someone doesn't like. And I know the staff will never engage in a conversation here (quite wisely, as I was told by several non-ICANN staff members of the list with loner experience than mine:-) At 06:56 AM 13.12.2006 '?.' -0800, Danny Younger wrote: I read the scripts. Obviously you did not. Cite your proof or offer me an apology. No one has insulted you. You have been told that your comments are not true. This is fact; not insult. I am extremly happy to see this exchange of e-mails. It not only shows that you continue with a practice, which is not correct - that is, you quote private e-mails in a public mailing list. It also shows that your views on the way the ICANN board works, are quite wrong. Here's what you said to Roberto: "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. " I commented with the following lines to the second paragraph quoted above, "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." To which you retarded (only to the second sentence of my three sentences): "Not true. I'm surprised that you have to resort to falsehoods."
I am making comments on something you said. You said that it's impossible for you to know... whether the concerns of the IPC and others received a fair hearing from members of the Board," To which I respond with three sentences, all of them in connection with each other. Now that we've shown how selective (and wrong) you are, let go to the scripts:
Which shows that there have been comments, and there has been a response. Susan Crawford: I was one of the board members who supported waiting until this meeting here in Sao Paulo to see what the GNSO came up with in case it might be useful to us in considering whether the terms of org, biz, and info should change. This shows that the Board has been discussing before Sao Paulo the issue, or else there would be no "waiting until this meeting". and Susan also said: So bottom line here, I see no reason for the board to stand in the way of these three operators, given the existence of the com and net agreements, and given their desire to be treated equally and our contractual obligation not to single out any registry operator for disparate treatment. That's self-explanatory, and it should be even for you. Here's more from Paul Twomey: And on the 18th of July, the board then provided the staff with a sense of the board relating to the posting of the proposed agreements, for a public comment period this time of no less than 30 days and requested the staff provide summary documents at the time of posting. On the 28th of July, the proposed agreements were posted for public comment, with description of key terms. The term of the agreement, presumptive renewal, lifting of price controls, fees payable to ICANN, consensus policy implementation, process for approval of new registry services, data scope revisions and other terms. And that posting was from then through to the 28th of August. On the 7th of September, the board discussed the summary of public comments posted in response to the .biz, .info, and .org agreements. And at the staff request -- and that was quite a long discussion. That was quite a -- I recall that as being quite an in-depth discussion of the -- of all the points that had been raised. and further: On the 25th of September. So another three weeks, again -- not three weeks, but 14 days later, the board discussed the public comments. Various board members expressed concerns that the issues raised had been appropriately responded to by the registries. And the board discussed the need for additional information and specific desire for communication from each of the registries to respond to these public comments and to put their case.
I could continue quoting, but I think even the ones above show clearly that the Board has disccused the issues, about which YOU write: "My assessment is that a fair hearing of all these concerns did not happen." and you also said: "...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..." Danny, when you are saying that the scripts do not show a number of directors making comments on the concerns you mention (e.g. that the Board indeed had not only one, but many hearings of all of these concerns), and you say that I "have to resort to falsehoods", I believe that this is a continuation of the usual insults that have been published on this list every time somoene does not agree with some of the most vocal people here. However, you responded to my private e-mail with a note to the list as follows: Danny: I read the scripts. Obviously you did not. Cite your proof or offer me an apology. No one has insulted you. You have been told that your comments are not true. This is fact; not insult. So, Danny, it seems you and I have disagreement on what is a fact. For you a fact is what you say. For me a fact is what actually happened. More into the lines of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact . None of the explanations there fit into what you say is a "fact". In fact, when I talk about you and facts, I probably have to put fact in quotes, e.g. According to Danny's "facts" . I don't need to quote more proofs in order to show that you have been misrepresenting the facts about the discussion on the Board about the proposed agreements. veni --- Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx> wrote: Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com
|