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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Veni and all,

  Veni this is the third contradiction you have demonstrated and has
been noticed by several others on this forum.  Are they/we all
wrong and only you are right?  Maybe, but not likely.  Good thing
for ICANN and yourself that you are leaving the board, as your
credibility is waning...

  Consumers want, expect and have a reasonable right to demand
honesty and integrity in any Bod member of any Bod of any
company, and consistently so.

  This decision by the ICANN Bod was clearly not arrived at
in an honest way and lacked a certain amount of integrity based
on ICANN's own bylaws as well as comments by Bod members
including yourself, documented in part by yourself, as well as other
ICANN Bod members in San Paulo.

Veni Markovski wrote:

> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827