FW: Respectful Online Communication and Behavior
Karl,
In conclusion, I am once again stunned that ICANN permitted money to be spent in the creation of this document.
I don't think that the ICANN Board should go into details like what document the Ombudsman should or should not develop and publish. I am convinced that the actual system, that gives the Ombudsman latitude in the way he/she will use her/his budget is appropriate. Best regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach Sent: Wednesday, 13 May 2009 20:47 To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: avri@acm.org; council@gnso.icann.org; ccnso-council@icann.org; louie@equinix.com; Disspain; janis.karklins@icann.org; jun@wide.ad.jp; Steve Crocker; Charles A. (Chuck) Gomes; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; policy@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Respectful Online Communication and Behavior
Frank Fowlie wrote:
I don't believe that there is anything strange or naïve in the expectation that participants in an organization which represents a global community would conduct themselves at a level of discourse and behaviour that includes respectful communication.
You seem to have entirely missed the point of my note.
Yesterday I visited the home of Thomas Jefferson, the man who drafted the United States' Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was drafted in the most respectful of terms but it stated with clarity and force an utter repudiation of the king's position.
The core of your document is not respect but self emasculation:
Your document tells us to "exercis[e] independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment."
ICANN's board members do in fact have a fiduciary duty that somewhat resembles the above. But we are not board members.
And ICANN employees are required in the course of their jobs to follow the policies set forth by ICANN's board. But we are not ICANN employees.
Those of us who argue for positions within ICANN are entitled to argue for our own values. We may use such means of expression as we feel most appropriate.
Further, many of us are attorneys who represent clients in these matters. It would be a violation of our professional obligations to our clients were we to set aside their interests and substitute your "overall best interest of the Internet user" standard. Others, who work form corporate "stakeholders" within ICANN would often be in dereliction of their own duties to their employers were they to set aside the interests of their employer.
Your note is out of touch with the ICANN that exists. ICANN is a system of economic regulation of the domain name space. ICANN does virtually nothing that pertains to the "stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers".
In conclusion, I am once again stunned that ICANN permitted money to be spent in the creation of this document.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Karl,
In conclusion, I am once again stunned that ICANN permitted money to be spent in the creation of this document.
I don't think that the ICANN Board should go into details like what document the Ombudsman should or should not develop and publish. I am convinced that the actual system, that gives the Ombudsman latitude in the way he/she will use her/his budget is appropriate.
Were it the case, which it most definitely is not, that the community of internet users had sufficient voting representation on ICANN's board of directors to decide whether this is in-scope for the ombudsman than I might agree with you. However, given that it is the case that the community of internet users has virtually no say in how ICANN spends the money that ICANN takes from those internet users then I do not agree that ICANN's ombudsman ought to have the authority to spend what is in effect our money on frivolous purposes, into which category squarely falls that most recent bit of politically correct fluff. ICANN is now hiring a new president on the basis of he/she having run a $100,000,000 (US$) corporation. That's $100,000,000! There seems to be no sense within ICANN that money is to be spent wisely. Rather there seems to exist a corporate lifestyle of lavish and unbridled expenditure. What's next? Ombudsman luggage tags? Oh, that has already happened. I agree with John Levine that ICANN's org chart needs a good pruning and that the ombudsman is a good place to make the first small cut. --karl--
Karl, To be clear, my point was not about whether the budget is high or low, and who should control it, that's another debate. My only point was that by design the Ombudsman has latitude in the use of his/her budget, once this budget is decided. In simple words, control by the Board of the way the Ombudsman spends money would be limiting the independence of the Ombudsman's Office. Forget for a moment the luggage tags (that, incidentally, I have never heard of before), and think about the Board deciding that the Ombudsman should or should not spend money for discovery on a case: if this would happen, I would expect a strong outcry by the community. If we want to let him/her the freedom of investigating without interferences, we have also to accept that money might be spent for other reasons. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@cavebear.com] Sent: Monday, 18 May 2009 01:11 To: At-Large Worldwide; 'Roberto Gaetano' Subject: Re: [At-Large] FW: Respectful Online Communication and Behavior
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Karl,
In conclusion, I am once again stunned that ICANN permitted money to be spent in the creation of this document.
I don't think that the ICANN Board should go into details like what document the Ombudsman should or should not develop and publish. I am convinced that the actual system, that gives the Ombudsman latitude in the way he/she will use her/his budget is appropriate.
Were it the case, which it most definitely is not, that the community of internet users had sufficient voting representation on ICANN's board of directors to decide whether this is in-scope for the ombudsman than I might agree with you.
However, given that it is the case that the community of internet users has virtually no say in how ICANN spends the money that ICANN takes from those internet users then I do not agree that ICANN's ombudsman ought to have the authority to spend what is in effect our money on frivolous purposes, into which category squarely falls that most recent bit of politically correct fluff.
ICANN is now hiring a new president on the basis of he/she having run a $100,000,000 (US$) corporation. That's $100,000,000! There seems to be no sense within ICANN that money is to be spent wisely. Rather there seems to exist a corporate lifestyle of lavish and unbridled expenditure.
What's next? Ombudsman luggage tags? Oh, that has already happened.
I agree with John Levine that ICANN's org chart needs a good pruning and that the ombudsman is a good place to make the first small cut.
--karl--
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
My only point was that by design the Ombudsman has latitude in the use of his/her budget, once this budget is decided. In simple words, control by the Board of the way the Ombudsman spends money would be limiting the independence of the Ombudsman's Office.
Suppose, by way of hypothetical example, that the ombudsman were to publish a document that says that men are more deserving of top level domains than women. I believe that you would agree that such a publication would be far beyond the purview of the ombudsman, that it suggests an impermissible bias, and that the board would be be strongly motivated to apply corrective measures. What the ombudsman has done though his publication of an ICANN rule of political correctness is to indicate a bias in favor of those who speak with flowers over those who use hard words. That suggests a bias in his office against those who use direct terms and eschew diplomatic indirection. His document also suggests a bias against those who argue for their own interests or who miss meetings. The board has every reason to repudiate that kind of appearance of bias and to refuse to pay for the creation and publication of what amounts to a book of etiquette, particularly when that book is published by one who is likely to base decisions on whether that etiquette is followed. The current office of the ombudsman has done little to fill the gap that was created when ICANN erased elected directors, positions that are far better equipped and more solidly legally empowered to redress ICANN errors than any ombudsman. Over the last few years the number of ICANN errors that have been redressed through board member intervention has vastly outnumbered the instances of the ombudsman doing anything at all. Witness, for example the RegisterFly disaster. What I am getting at is this - we, the community of internet users, paid dearly when elected board seats were lost. We received scant compensating value in the emasculated office of the ombudsman. In the old US system of equity there was a maxim: "For every wrong there is a remedy." Under the ICANN ombudsman that maxim seems to have been corrupted into "For every wrong there is a verbose excuse." I would recommend the following as an apt and rather humorous text that describes a fictional English body that seems to have the same institutional goal as ICANN's ombudsman: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/cavebear/containing_the_whole_science_of_gov... --karl--
My only point was that by design the Ombudsman has latitude in the use of his/her budget, once this budget is decided. In simple words, control by the Board of the way the Ombudsman spends money would be limiting the independence of the Ombudsman's Office.
I haven't heard anyone asking the board to tell the ombudsman what to do. My suggestion is to tell him thanks, that was an interesting experiment, luggage tags and all, but now it's over.
Forget for a moment the luggage tags (that, incidentally, I have never heard of before)
They're real. I think I have one of them. R's, John
participants (3)
-
John R. Levine -
Karl Auerbach -
Roberto Gaetano