[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

[Avri Doria]

On 14 maj 2007, at 17.12, Veni Markovski wrote:

> At 16:20 5/14/2007  +0200, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> On 14 maj 2007, at 14.39, Veni Markovski wrote:
>>
>>> Now, it is really interesting to see if anyone will have the
>>> courage to sit down and write this as part of the RFC.
>>
>>
>> I am not sure what courage has to do with it.
>
> Sorry - that's an example of translating from Bulgarian to English.
> Perhaps I should have used another word. The bottom line is: people  
> spend time here, to talk about other people, or about ICANN, but  
> they don't spend the very same amount of time to go and comment on  
> iCANN performance, where they will be heard. Interesting....
>


Actually as I was sort of pointing out (or rather as a corollary of  
what i was pointing out), if the members of this list want to send a  
comment from the IGC as opposed to just  from individuals, then  
discussing it on the list was absolutely the right thing to do.  In  
fact instead of wasting their time, they were doing the exact sort of  
thing that needs to happen on this list: discussion that evolves to a  
rough consensus of a caucus position.  I am not saying we are there  
yet (it is not for me to say), but i am saying that this was not a  
wasted activity.  The one thing that may have been wasted activity  
was having to explain why the caucus did not need to apologize or  
feel bad about discussing something that is of interest to many of  
the members of the caucus.

Personally i kind of hope the caucus does arrive at a caucus  
statement and that they do submit it to performance-2007.  As a  
member of the GSNO council, i will probably not participate in  
creating such a statement because in a sense it also reflects on the  
volunteer efforts (e.g. the board is composed of volunteers) and i am  
one of those volunteers who value ICANN but who also want to know as  
much as possible about what others think about it so that it can  
continue to evolve and improve.

And i support Kieren's request that as many people, as individuals  
who wish do send in their private comments.  Though I may join those  
who feel he did not express himself as well as he might have when  
inviting the caucus to participate (a lump of meat to a pack of  
starving wolves, indeed!), I believe his intentions were good and we  
should take him up on the opportunity.  Once I have had time to think  
about the wording I may indeed post a recommendation that the Board  
reconsider its decision on recording meetings and suggest that they  
use the  GNSO and ALAC as well as the .br board as case studies in  
the practicality and realities of such a practice.

a.

____________________________________________________________
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