Re: [ga] Getting Heard by the ICANN Board

[Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>]

At 01:41 PM 13.12.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж  -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > a note on your comments - you were a director 
> > until June 2003, when I joined. Things with 
> > staff - board relations are quite different 
> > today; people should reach conclusions about 
> > today's ICANN based on your experience. Perhaps 
> > it's good to say that, so that there's no misunderstanding.
>
> Perhaps "staff" has improved, although I have 
> heard reports that indicate that it hasn't 
> really improved much (although the absence of 
> Joe Sims as a glowering, unaccredded board 
> member probably, in itself, makes a big 
> difference.  And I perceive Paul T. as 
> qualitatively more willing to consider, discuss, 
> adapt, and adjust than Stuart Lynn.)

I can't compare them, I was just saying how I 
felt in my three years. It's a feeling quite 
different from yours. You're the one to compare. 
But that's history, and as I can see, some people 
here still live in history (don't have you in 
mind:), and they always complain how it used to be 7 years ago, etc.

> But as far as board communication with the 
> public, board member explaination of the reasons 
> for their actions, well in that regard there is 
> sign of improvement, but the signs are but 
> minced steps on what is for ICANN a very long road of its own creation.

Well, explanation of reasons is not something 
I've seen on many boards. In fact, I don't 
remember having to explain why I voted one way or 
another anywhere else, but on the ICANN board. I 
quoted on purpose in my lengthly response to the 
two questions someone was asking me over and over 
again, that it's good to read what consensus 
policy means. However, it seems that people tend 
to neglect when they get the answers to their 
questions, and continue with the old record...


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

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