ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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."


Now, let's go back, and try to explain what happened.

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:



Vint Cerf: The first one is to observe that there was a great deal of public comment on the initial agreement -- text of the initial agreements. And the board responded and staff responded by renegotiating some terms of those agreements. and These three proposals have been pending for quite some time and have been exposed to public comment, and have been responded to.

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.


and Rita Rodin: And I think you have heard and I am very appreciative of Paul reading into the record, I think you have heard the process that was undergone in connection with these contracts. And I think it's important that everyone realize that this board really had some very robust discussions about this. And as Vint said, tried to look at all the constituencies as a whole and really try to understand some of the concerns on both the registry and the other constituency side.

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:

> Danny, Danny...
>
> the scripts are there - go, read, educate.
>
> When insults go together with blaming my that I lie,
> that's beyond my
> understanding of normal relations.
> You owe me an excuse, if you want to continue any
> reasonable
> conversation with me.
>
> At 06:25 AM 13.12.2006 '?.'  -0800, you wrote:
> >Re:  "The scripts from the meeting on Friday
> >show a number of Board directors making comments on
> >the concerns you mention."
> >
> >Not true.  I'm surprised that you have to resort to
> >falsehoods.
> >
> >regards,
> >Danny
> >
> >


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

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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>