[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

[Veni Markovski]

I hope that Kieren would not bother responding to a personal message 
- as we all know, that's the usual way to escape from talking about 
the substance of his e-mail (e.g. contribute positively) to 
something, where some people are very "good" at (e.g. contribute negatively).

Look, the facts are simple, regardless of what you say: Kieren was 
not required to come to this list, he did it in good will; perhaps 
thinking this is a good idea. If he would have asked me, as one of 
the early participants here, I would have advised him differently, 
but he did what he though was right.

I am sure that he will take into consideration your remarks about his 
own performance in his new job, but, unfortunately, this will not go 
into the record as described below:


>As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is 
>seeking community feedback about its performance.
>
>All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas 
>of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, 
>are of particular interest:
>    * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and 
> accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still 
> needs to be done?
>    * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What 
> improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?
>    * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of 
> Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?
>    * Has ICANN increased international participation? What 
> improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?
>    * Have there been improvements in participation and in 
> efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done?
>    * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN 
> for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of 
> the Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done?
>    * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the 
> application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints 
> and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include 
> the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and 
> independent review.
>Comments will be received at 
><http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/>http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ 
>until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: 
><mailto:performance-2007 at icann.org>performance-2007 at icann.org.
>
>
>You can see this announcement here: 
><http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm>http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm
>
>I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: 
><http://blog.icann.org/?p=125>http://blog.icann.org/?p=125
>
>And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide 
>open and proud of it) here: 
><http://public.icann.org/issues/performance>http://public.icann.org/issues/performance
>
>Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you 
>want a chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum 
>page for it, just ask.
>
>And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can.
>
>
>Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks.
>
>
>
>
>Kieren
>
>
>Kieren McCarthy
>General manager of public participation, ICANN
>
>kieren.mccarthy at icann.org
>

____________________________________________________________
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