At 28/03/2010 11:29 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
The deeply entrenched role of senior staff -- in making policy decisions as opposed to facilitating stakeholder consensus -- has been a deep concern of mine.
Not yours alone. Although the people that you are referring to are not part of ICANN "Policy Staff", it has been pointed out that the latter should really be named "Policy Support Staff".
I have seen it most acutely in the production of the DAG but also in many other places. (As best as I can now discern, the "Morality and Public Order" objection class in the DAG is a total fabrication by staff whose cannot be traced to any ICANN constituency.)
For better or worse (worse in my mind), this did come directly from the GNSO New gTLD PDP - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm, Recommendation 6. Alan
The opaqueness with which Staff conducts its affairs taints the efforts of the constituencies that it serves. Something as simple as requesting staff reports to the Board (that are not of a personal or contractual nature) be public documents comes across as culture shock.
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org