[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

[Guru@ITfC]

Kieren

"Guru's response highlighted exactly the reason I felt the need to post a
fairly blunt message about the RFC to this particular list (it also
highlighted my point about personal abuse, among other things)." 

My posting was one of surprise at the tenor of the mail from a person in
charge of "public participation" seeking feedback for organizational
improvement. If my mail constitutes 'personal abuse' then you should reflect
on your own mail where there is heavy condescension and arrogance, totally
out of tune with any feedback seeking process. People will give as feedback,
what they think is appropriate and the person/institution receiving it can
then decide what to do with it. Making several prescriptions and using
intemperate language suggests that you want only a certain kind of feedback,
and that you can browbeat people who think different.  I am also surprised
that some people are so touchy about icann and rush through their postings
to advise the rest on how to present our views or feedback to that
organization. There are others who do not want to treat icann as a holy cow.

Your response to my posting, the inability to see the 'circling of wagons'
that Bill Drake pointed out, as well as the silence of icann to the damning
report of Karl Auerbach ("ICANN has never bothered to publish it despite a
routine practice of publishing similar materials") gives me an idea of the
'openness' of icann and its working. IMO, such a culture has no place in
civilized global governance. On the other hand, I do appreciate the openness
and cordiality that Joichi attempts in his own invitation for feedback, so
maybe there is still hope! 

Guru


-----Original Message-----
From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 5:39 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

Norbert, I agree with you.

Like I said, I have read CIRA's response and will push the OECD guidelines
from this point on. They include what you are asking for.

At the moment however there is this RFC. It is serving a particular purpose
and any responses made to it that made totally different points will simply
not form part of the discussion. That is how consultations work.

Guru's response highlighted exactly the reason I felt the need to post a
fairly blunt message about the RFC to this particular list (it also
highlighted my point about personal abuse, among other things).

Karl Auerbach's post referred wholly to a paper written in 2003 (my post
said: "This RFC is not about... moaning about something that happened three
or more years ago.") He also received a considered response from Veni
Markovski which I whole-heartedly agree with.  

I think Bill Drake's response was well considered and a useful point. And
Michael Gurstein helpfully drew attention to another useful response from
CIRA.

Any useful responses - even critical ones - any useful responses that fit
within the framework of the RFC as outlined are heartily welcomed and will
be considered in full.



Kieren




-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 12:42 PM
To: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:

> However, if anyone does wish to provide useful feedback to ICANN's 
> performance, the RFC is there. I hope I have flagged it up 
> sufficiently
and
> made it clear that there is a clear route from comment to 
> consideration within ICANN.

That is not good enough.  There also needs to be accountability in the
consideration itself, not only in the route from comment to consideration.

I wish to provide useful feedback to internet-related governance processes
of all kinds, and I'm capable of doing so in a competent and constructive
manner.

However, due to time constraints, I need to be selective in deciding to whom
I choose to make myself available in this manner.

My only feedback to you at this time is that I feel that your response to
Guru was totally inappropriate and that Karl's message deserves a careful,
substantive response, and that unless ICANN responds to that in an
appropriate manner, I have no reason to believe that working on a response
to ICANN's RFC would be a productive use of my time.

Yours sincerely
Norbert Bollow
President of the Swiss Internet User Group

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance