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

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Veni,

You have offered no quotes whatsoever on the topic of
the traffic data concerns raised by the IPC -- not
that you could (because no such quotes exist).  

Of course, the board may have privately discussed the
issue, but we will never know as long as the Star
Chamber continues to place a higher value on the worth
of secretive communications relating to public policy
matters than in the worth of full transparency and
public disclosure.



--- Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited