RE: [ga] Increased foreign attendance

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff

You don't have to worry about me getting tired or annoyed. :-)  Feel free to
disagree anytime.

I don't have a problem with constructive criticism.  I have a problem with
people who keep banging the same stick to the same tune. 

I have asked several times what the remit of this forum is; what are your
objectives?  I cannot deduce it from the email content other than this is
the "let's hit ICANN with the biggest sticks we can find" forum. Has it
achieved anything so far?  Perhaps it is time for a change. 

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 29 June 2007 07:14
> To: Debbie Garside
> Cc: dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx; sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Increased foreign attendance
> 
> Debbie and all,
> 
>   Sorry again Debbie, but I must disagree with you again 
> which by now, I an sure you are getting tired and/or annoyed 
> of me doing so.
> Criticality is nearly always constructive or advantageous in 
> some way.  Without critical views and review, we would all 
> likely be automatons, and little advancement in any area of 
> endeavor would be achieved.
> 
> 
> Debbie Garside wrote:
> 
> > Hi Danny
> >
> > Thanks for the outline.  I can, somewhat, understand your 
> frustration.
> > However as an observer I can perhaps see why, I have been 
> subscribed 
> > to this list since December 2006 and from what I can see 
> the majority 
> > of posts are highly critical of ICANN and not in any way 
> constructive; it is the
> > constructive aspect that is missing.    Please don't 
> misunderstand me, I do
> > not mean that you should not disagree but rather there are ways of 
> > disagreeing with ICANN and putting forward positive points 
> for change.  
> > If you only criticise you cannot be expected to be taken 
> seriously. If 
> > you put forward ideas and they are constructive and can 
> reasonably be 
> > implemented they stand a better chance of being adopted.  
> If you put 
> > forward good ideas that stand no chance of being 
> implemented they cannot reasonably be adopted.
> > OK, so I am a little naïve, but I have worked committees and forums 
> > for a number of years with some success.
> >
> > For instance, if you disagree with ICANN's inclusion initiative 
> > perhaps you could say why.  This forum could be much more 
> constructive 
> > and feed into the process. I am afraid that moaning about 
> someone else 
> > getting travel assistance will not improve your case.  
> Other comments in line below:
> >
> >
> > > With regard to your other observations, ICANN can certainly be 
> > > faulted for not providing a plenary agenda well in advance of its 
> > > sessions.  No reasonable person that is not funded by other 
> > > self-interested parties can plan to attend a conference 
> without even 
> > > the benefit of a schedule of activities to justify the expense of 
> > > travel, lodging, and time away from family or work.
> >
> > I think pretty much everyone knows 90% of what is going to be on 
> > ICANN's agenda each time.  However, I would agree that a 
> generous lead 
> > time is always preferable though not always possible. As an 
> example, I 
> > recently called a meeting of international experts with 
> just 14 days 
> > notice. This is obviously not good, but you have to understand what 
> > goes on behind the scenes to organise such things.  Then you can 
> > perhaps see how impossible it sometimes is to organise sooner.  
> > Venues, timings, other peoples schedules of meetings to tie in for 
> > main participants.  It can be a logistical nightmare and I 
> only have 25 members in 10 different countries!
> >
> > > Many of us on this list have little interest in ICANN's inclusion 
> > > initiatives as long as ICANN continues to pursue exclusionary 
> > > policies.
> >
> > Well, a little bit of advice, take interest and then you may become 
> > the included.  Or at the very least, stop bashing ICANN at 
> every opportunity.
> >
> > > These exclusionary policies have seen the removal of all at-large 
> > > directors from ICANN's board, the formal dissolution of 
> the General 
> > > Assembly as a representative structure and no role for 
> the broader 
> > > at-large community of unaffiliated individuals.
> >
> > I don't know that much about ICANN and the way they run things but 
> > looking at this purely from a business perspective, ICANN 
> are trying 
> > to run a business/service.  Trying to do that with a board of 
> > Directors all with different agendas is almost impossible and can 
> > totally freeze an organization.  You have to build a board 
> of people 
> > who have the same or similar goals to get things done. It 
> is not about 
> > exclusion, it is about moving forward.
> >
> > > ICANN's exclusionary policies have twice seen the Board 
> disregard a 
> > > petition for an individuals constituency.
> >
> > I don't understand this?
> >
> > > Just because ICANN now has a swelling budget (the result of 
> > > Board-imposed domain name price increases that the registrant 
> > > community has to pay for) does not mean that we approve of ICANN 
> > > spending our monies to gather up a circle of "friends"
> > > while those critical of ICANN behaviors continue to be 
> left out in 
> > > the cold.
> >
> > So what is this forum all about?  What is it that you don't 
> like about 
> > ICANN policies or procedures and how would you propose that they 
> > change?  Does this forum have a Charter?
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Debbie Garside
> > >
> > > best wishes,
> > > Danny
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Just a couple of small observations not directed at anyone
> > > but rather
> > > > for the thread as a whole.  Technically government ministries
> > > > (supposedly) represent the people who elected them.
> > > >
> > > > On a further note, many of us (probably most in this
> > > > forum) have an option
> > > > as to whether we spend our money going to ICANN meetings.
> > > Questions
> > > > like:
> > > > is it worth the expense or is it not?  Do I want to spend
> > > my money on
> > > > this or shall I have an extra holiday with my family? Can I
> > > afford the
> > > > time?
> > > > Etc.  Come into play.  For some the prospect of going 
> to an ICANN 
> > > > meeting means spending 4 years (+) income!  Not really 
> an option 
> > > > is it!
> > > > http://www.cbuhaiti.org/about_haiti.htm
> > > >
> > > > I, for one, applaud the initiative.  I wish there were more
> > > such. If
> > > > there were no such initiative, no doubt, members of this
> > > forum would
> > > > be beating ICANN around the head with a big stick demanding it!
> > > >  Perhaps we could
> > > > change the essence of this thread to how ICANN can 
> improve their 
> > > > "Inclusion Initiatives" as opposed to griping about
> > > participants being
> > > > "paid" to attend.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Debbie Garside
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> > > > > sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Sent: 27 June 2007 22:08
> > > > > To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Increased foreign attendance
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh yeah... real PUBLIC participation... employess
> > > > of
> > > > > government ministries and telcos...  Seems more
> > > > like a stooge
> > > > > version of the GAC and Business Constituency, but
> > > > without the
> > > > > suit jackets and ties...
> > > > >
> > > > > Is anyone really surprised by this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup!  These people will definitely make a
> > > > difference in ICANN
> > > > > which will work to the benefit of the PUBLIC...
> > > > LMAO!
> > > > >
> > > > > SS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> This is a perfect example of how numbers get
> > > > skewed.
> > > > > >> The amazing part is that they are blowing their
> > > > trumpets over it,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > <http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-26jun07.htm>
> > > > > >> They pay these peoples to attend. To bad I no
> > > > longer
> > > > > >> live in a distant exotic land.
> > > > > >>   I cannot believe that they did not see this article as a 
> > > > > >> bad idea.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>   Eric
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --------------------------------- Choose the right car
> > > based on
> > > > > >> your needs.
> > > > Check out
> > > > > >> Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > > > ______________________
> > > > > > Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you
> > > > sell.
> > > > > > http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > ______________________
> > > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to 
> > > hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
> > > http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>