Rinalia,
It's about a lot more than my frustration, it's about nothing less
than fair and equal access to the process for all Internet users.
When ICANN seeks to use inclusion of the "end user" in its goal to
become the independent Internet steward but then does not fulfill
its obligation we have to vigorously address that problem.
Not only is this a big issue, it is potentially the biggest issue.
ICANN says "we don't need government oversight" but has no
framework or even internal will to protect consumers in the
absence of government regulation. From the horse's mouth, they
don't think consumer trust is their obligation, so why would they
bother to build anything that ensures the consumer trust?
However, your explanation points to an inherent problem within
ICANN and particularly within compliance. What we see over and
over is a failure to provide adequate process to manage issues
(complaints/data) coming into the organization. If they are having
problems with large commercial entities that is a completely
separate issue from dealing with pure consumer voices. If they are
barking at consumer voices in At-Large the same way they do at big
industry then this is a complete failure to execute the
multi-stakeholder model. They need to go back to the drawing board
and start over.
-Garth
On 4/15/16 3:32 AM,
rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, Garth.
I appreciate your frustration, but I
do not believe Compliance is doing all these blogs just to
distract people. They do receive "requests" for action on
content matters and it is a smaller proportion compared to WHOIS
inaccuracy complaints, but apparently the effort and time
required to address the content problems are disproportionately
higher, especially when the "requests" come from organized and
large commercial entities with lots of legal resources. The
blogs are part of the effort to address that problem through
education and awareness.
Regarding staffing, specifically the
hiring of the Consumer Safeguard Director, which I know you and
the At-Large are very concerned about, there needs to be
follow-up action from Compliance to draw up a job ToR for the
position and to invite ALAC input. This is an action item
stemming from that meeting and the Board will review the status
of that action at its May meeting.
Best regards,
Rinalia