On 28 March 2010 17:10, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
The allocation of the seats on this committee is done, not much point in complaining about it now.
In any event, we have much bigger fish to fry. Here's a few to start with:
* The board's frequent failure to do what the bylaws require them to do, e.g., reconsideration, .XXX. ...
How hard would it be to assemble sufficient detail on this?
* An institutional lack of compliance. Every clause in every contract that ICANN has with registrars and registries needs to be monitored and enforced. The failure to implement registrar data escrow for ten years, until the Registerfly fiasco made it too embarassing to ignore, is the most obvious example, but it's a chronic problem.
Agreed. There would not be much demand for a "High Security Zone" designation (as proposed in the current DAG) if the "standard security zone" actually had the public trust. * The so-called Ombudsman (Ed Hasbrouck is right, the board has never
properly appointed him) is simultaneously ineffective and out of control.
I thought that the Board recently rectified that situation. Still, I am concerned about the vision behind an office that is best known for the ever-more-elaborate swag, and the establishment of an always-open office during meetings that seems to view itself as an ICANN confessional. The deeply entrenched role of senior staff -- in making policy decisions as opposed to facilitating stakeholder consensus -- has been a deep concern of mine. 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.) 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