[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

[Veni Markovski]

Hi, Karl.

At 12:57 5/13/2007  -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>I am only adding to this thread on this list because I believe that 
>the growth of internet governance must learn from the lessons of the 
>past. And in that regard, our experience with ICANN, is book that we 
>must examine without rose colored glasses.

Absolutely, and there's one thing, though - a page of history could 
(should) be read, and turned. We could, - but should we? concentrate 
on that very same page, because then we lose track of reality, while 
reading over and over the same page.

>Veni Markovski wrote:
>
>>But ICANN has changed since the time you wrote it.
>
>Changed?  Yes - it has added a few frills and a lot of staff.  But 
>the core shape and issues remain the same.

Actually no - it has improved in many ways, which is clear by a 
number of facts. Some of them were mentioned also in your testimony 
to the Senate.

>Those recommendations to which I refer are as valid today as they 
>were three years ago.  And unlike the "thousands" of comments to 
>which you refer, these were made in the form of an official ICANN 
>communication written in the performance of his duty and after 
>considerable research by a sitting Director to the Board of Directors.

Actually, all of the comments made, are on the ICANN site. Sometimes 
I wonder what is more important - the form, or the content? If I want 
something on a site, esp. on one like the ICANN, where anyone - from 
directors to people with valid e-mail addresses - I can do that, even 
if I am not a director. I think that being a director is not like 
being a President, where one remains a President, even after he or 
she is not in office. As

>You may try to write them off as years old.  But does not ICANN's 
>failure to hear what was said not add reinforce underlying message 
>that ICANN simply does not care and that it will use this current 
>round of comments, exactly has it has used previous rounds, to 
>create merely an appearance without actual substance?

Disagree with you. What you wrote in your comments, has been taken 
into account, and it's obvious by so many facts today, that I find it 
strange even that I have to state this.

>You again and again say "contribute something new".  Perhaps that 
>would be a valid comment had ICANN ever changed and had its old 
>flaws been repaired.

When I say "something new" and "positive", I mean it. I don't want to 
hear anymore about ICANN not giving a director access to documents, 
because this is not the case today. I don't want to hear an advise to 
have audits, because there are audits, there are people who perform 
audits in the Board, and the Board hires external auditors, etc., 
etc. - you can go back to your list of recommendations and see that 
clearly it's an old one.

>Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its 
>committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the 
>public. No matter may be elided except after an on-record decision 
>that a particular matter should be discussed off the audio 
>recording.  Only matters pertaining to personnel matters, litigation 
>(or potential litigation), and contract negotiations may be 
>discussed off the audio record.

Karl, four points here:
a) Would you agree that some people, who are non-native English 
speakers may have problems having their words recorded?
b) Do you think that with 15 people from 10 countries, from different 
cultures, etc., if something bad was happening, it will remain 
unnoticed? Because if you do believe that, then you think the 
constantyl-changing-board is some kind of a secret group, which 
discusses something behind hidden doors, in hiding, or working in 
deep under cover.
c) I was personally against audio-recroding, and I am happy that 
today there are detailed minutes. Wouldn't you agree that the minutes 
today are different from the ones earlier?
d) Unlike you, I've lived in a state, where not only all mine, my 
father's and grandfather's meetings were audio-recorded. Actually 
since 1975, after my father's death in a car accident,  also all our 
phone calls were recorded, and my grandfather was followed 24 hrs/day 
by a body guard, who was reporting every move of his. I don't want 
this to happen to any director in the 21st century, at least not 
against her or his will. If they all agree - fine, but if even one 
feels monitored, and it is not in the by-laws, so that they would 
have know beforehand about this requirement, then I am for their free 
will, not yours. Sorry.

>Tell me why the recommendation that ICANN's directors each receive a 
>stipend so that they can afford the time and expense to 
>independently inform themselves on matters is a recommendation that 
>is somehow stale or inappropriate?

The people who are on the Board do not need money, as far as I know. 
In some countries time is not money. Actually, in the majority of the 
countries. I've only heard this proverb in the US.

>  Your recommendations
>>were published at this time, they were part of the hearings at the 
>>US Senate, and they are in many records.
>
>And you point is what?

My point is that some of them were taken into account, and some of 
them were not. Are you unhappy that ICANN didn't implement all? 
Perhaps. Is ICANN function to make you happy? I don't think so.

>You will not find these recommendations on on ICANN operated 
>repository.  In other words, ICANN suppressed, and apparently still 
>suppresses, concrete written recommendations made during the course 
>of a public meeting by a sitting director.

No, I think it's more important that ICANN has changed,  also using 
your recommendations, and has changed for good. And frankly, if you 
think that it's so important to have them on the ICANN web site, you 
can publish them on your own, including during the current process - 
just copy & paste them. If you believe they are still relevant, 
that's what you could do. I hope you don't expect that someone from 
your and ICANN's past should do it.

>I find it amusing how ICANN brackets the spectrum - at one end it 
>has unlawfully denied sitting directors the exercise of their legal rights.

I don't see anything amusing going always into your case against 
ICANN. This happened long time ago, and one of the signs ICANN has 
changed is, that the next directors didn't have the problems you've had.

best,
veni 

____________________________________________________________
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