Re: "they are the same ones who want to lower the costs of participation of Internet users in ICANN!" I share your outrage. This year ICANN will take in seven million dollars more than last year (not counting the new gTLD fees). ICANN will also maintain an investment reserve fund of about $28.0 million. Yet for some reason, ICANN management won't agree to fully fund the travel expenses of ICANN volunteers. Gosh, they might have to spend another $175,000 if they fully funded the GNSO Councilors.
Yet for some reason, ICANN management won't agree to fully fund the travel expenses of ICANN volunteers. Gosh, they might have to spend another $175,000 if they fully funded the GNSO Councilors.
I think ICANN is way too large...in just about everything: budget, size of staff, mission and ambition. I would rather see us start to scale ICANN back than use the bloat as justification for funding everything that is currently unfunded. -- Bret
Bret Fausett wrote:
Yet for some reason, ICANN management won't agree to fully fund the travel expenses of ICANN volunteers. Gosh, they might have to spend another $175,000 if they fully funded the GNSO Councilors.
I think ICANN is way too large...in just about everything: budget, size of staff, mission and ambition. I would rather see us start to scale ICANN back than use the bloat as justification for funding everything that is currently unfunded.
I agree. I have particular concern for the reasons expressed in my part of the ALAC review report - that there is no mechanism through which ICANN may be held accountable by the community of internet users for whose benefit ICANN was created and for which it receives immunity from taxation and other privileges. Recently, in conjunction with the conflicker worm we have learned that ICANN has decided to expand into new territory and become an internet police officer, enforcing its own notion of what should be done to shut down an internet virus. What, exactly, ICANN is doing is unknown. And there is no sign that this was done in accord with any known ICANN policy or under what constraints, if any. ICANN, through its imposition of arbitrary and unsubstantiated registry fees on name registrations is taxing the internet community at a rate that is probably on the order of a billion US dollars ($1,000,000,000 USD) every year. ICANN carries the power of life and death over registry businesses that are completely lawful - a power that has been exercised mainly on the "death" side of the balance and often as an apparent protection of ICANN's incumbent registries and intellectual property "stakeholders". The other week I was looking at some elephant seals on a nearby beach - enormous creatures - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOATFGBS7G0 - They remind me of ICANN. ICANN's board, because of the nominating committee process and dilution by "liasons", is composed of worthies who seem more interested in being Mr. Nice Guy than advocates for an accountable, responsible, streamlined ICANN. I was amazed at ICANN's form 990 - it took 136 pages of self congratulatory (and probably rather expensive to create) fluff to convey what should have been said in a 5 page form. Indeed, it is not clear that there actually is the content required of a form 990 inside that huge thing that ICANN published. ICANN has sprouted excrescences, such as its vacuous "Ombudsman", that are expensive and useless and that should be cut away. If we count up all the money that ICANN pulls from the pockets of internet users - the registry fees, the ICANN per-domain tax, etc, we find that we are cumulatively paying more than a billion dollars a year for ICANN. (Most of that billion goes to registries, only a $100,000,000 or so sticks, tax free, to ICANN itself.) And in my opinion we are not getting anything near our money's worth. ICANN needs to be placed on a severe diet. But I do not see any force within ICANN that has the guts to do it. --karl--
Karl You raise some very valid points. The problem, as I see it in my rather naive view, is that ICANN has some wonderful individuals working for them, but that it's being crippled by the sheer size of its own bureaucracy. Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
The problem, as I see it in my rather naive view, is that ICANN has some wonderful individuals working for them, but that it's being crippled by the sheer size of its own bureaucracy.
ICANN does indeed have some very impressive people. Patrick Sharry who supported us on the ALAC working group deserves a medal for his work. And he is not alone in the ICANN organization - ICANN has many people of great talent and who work long and hard hours with the most positive of motives and of high ethical values. Their names are often unknown to us; they deserve recognition and our thanks. But good talent needs to be channeled else it expends its energy inefficiently. ICANN's board has not been a good manager; it has not tightly channeled or constrained its chosen executives. (And those executives, in turn, have not constrained or channeled ICANN staff.) The result has been an enormous amount of micro management burden on the board - the board is doing the work they should have delegated. And as a result the board is too busy to look at the larger picture and hold ICANN to the straight and narrow road that it should be following. And that, in turn, creates a situation in which ICANN expands like a balloon, as is the nature of bureaucracies that are not carefully controlled. And this tendency is made the worse by the fact that certain aspects of ICANN, as well as some historical forces, have tended towards empire building by some people who seem to measure their worth by the extent of their org chart and budget or the number of travel miles they can accumulate every year. And bloat rarely recedes - I have yet to find people who can make a cogent argument that ICANN's ombudsman function is working and worth retaining, yet I have not become aware of any efforts to eliminate that part of ICANN. When I was on the board - my term ended in 2003 - there was an estimate that the most that ICANN's budget could ever reach was about $9,000,000 USD. (And I considered that bloated.) Yet here we are today with an ICANN budget that is reaching towards 10x that amount. ICANN's budget is already on the order of 25% of the budget of the entire ITU! In a few years at the current rate of growth ICANN's budget will match and even exceed that of the ITU. --karl--
Karl Auerbach wrote:
ICANN's board, because of the nominating committee process and dilution by "liasons", is composed of worthies who seem more interested in being Mr. Nice Guy than advocates for an accountable, responsible, streamlined ICANN. I have no problem with liaisons. But right now the Board is controlled by vested interests with the public having "liaison" status, when in fact it should be the other way around.
I also recall something said by Westlake, though at this moment -- away from my documents -- I don't recall whether it was formally in the report or verbally expressed. But my memory seems fairly clear about this. I distinctly remember them saying that the Board operated on a consensus level, that having At-Large advocates with votes threatened that by making Board meetings more confrontational. I recall this was offered as one of the reasons against giving the vote to At-Large board reps. It seems to me -- despite my relative youth in ICANN politics -- that this culture of consensus has simply led to governance by "what offends the least" as opposed to leadership or assertion of even its published mission. All in the interest of politeness. It's even entrenched the concept of "consensus policy" ... as if that should have some different status compared to plain old "policy". Indeed, I think some parts of ICANN are even proud of this lowest-common-denominator approach to leadership. Yet in my short time in ICANN I've come to see it as a dereliction of duty, and a total unwillingness to stand up for anything of value except unchallenged growth for its own sake. - Evan
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
It seems to me -- despite my relative youth in ICANN politics -- that this culture of consensus has simply led to governance by "what offends the least" as opposed to leadership or assertion of even its published mission.
I very much agree with you. (I recognize the irony that by agreeing I am risking the creation of a consensus. ;-) In my year 2000 platform for the board I argued against the use of consensus methods - http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm#voting-not-consensu... If one looks at the fiduciary obligations of a board member one finds that those obligations require that every decision of a board member, whether that decision be for, against, or to abstain, must be made on an informed and independent basis. That requirement for independent decisionmaking by each board member suggests that mooing loudly and going along with the heard, which is one somewhat pejorative definition of consensus, is not consistent with the obligations that board members undertake. It is very hard to make fully independent and informed decisions, particularly when the definition of informed and independent is such that board members can chose to defer to the advice from certain special sources, such as attorneys or accountants - thus, for instance, information from staff can only be used after a mental process in which a board member evaluates the credibility and accuracy of the staff source and accepts the full responsibility upon himself/herself for the decision that is being made. The idea of consensus policy comes from the IETF. It worked in the IETF - and I say "worked" in the past tense because there are signs that it isn't working as well as it once did - when we were a relatively small group with similar educational and socioeconomic backgrounds and the matters before us were very technical and could be tested against the hard and cold reality of the operational internet. That consensus idea does not work well in the political world of ICANN. --karl--
and in the IETF model, if you don't like an Internet standard you can develop your own version. No one will stop you, but will it reach adoption is another matter. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@cavebear.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Sent: Thursday, 19 February, 2009 11:36:23 AM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS Evan Leibovitch wrote:
It seems to me -- despite my relative youth in ICANN politics -- that this culture of consensus has simply led to governance by "what offends the least" as opposed to leadership or assertion of even its published mission.
I very much agree with you. (I recognize the irony that by agreeing I am risking the creation of a consensus. ;-) In my year 2000 platform for the board I argued against the use of consensus methods - http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm#voting-not-consensu... If one looks at the fiduciary obligations of a board member one finds that those obligations require that every decision of a board member, whether that decision be for, against, or to abstain, must be made on an informed and independent basis. That requirement for independent decisionmaking by each board member suggests that mooing loudly and going along with the heard, which is one somewhat pejorative definition of consensus, is not consistent with the obligations that board members undertake. It is very hard to make fully independent and informed decisions, particularly when the definition of informed and independent is such that board members can chose to defer to the advice from certain special sources, such as attorneys or accountants - thus, for instance, information from staff can only be used after a mental process in which a board member evaluates the credibility and accuracy of the staff source and accepts the full responsibility upon himself/herself for the decision that is being made. The idea of consensus policy comes from the IETF. It worked in the IETF - and I say "worked" in the past tense because there are signs that it isn't working as well as it once did - when we were a relatively small group with similar educational and socioeconomic backgrounds and the matters before us were very technical and could be tested against the hard and cold reality of the operational internet. That consensus idea does not work well in the political world of ICANN. --karl--
At 18/02/2009 06:13 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
It seems to me -- despite my relative youth in ICANN politics -- that this culture of consensus has simply led to governance by "what offends the least" as opposed to leadership or assertion of even its published mission. All in the interest of politeness. It's even entrenched the concept of "consensus policy" ... as if that should have some different status compared to plain old "policy". Indeed, I think some parts of ICANN are even proud of this lowest-common-denominator approach to leadership. Yet in my short time in ICANN I've come to see it as a dereliction of duty, and a total unwillingness to stand up for anything of value except unchallenged growth for its own sake.
- Evan
Making no attempt to defend ICANN on these matters, I think that you are confusing "consensus policy" and "politeness" with not taking strong positions. I have sat on Boards where I was in violent disagreement with what others at the table were saying. I hope that in citing this disagreement, I was generally still polite and civil. What we do have is often "group think" (do a web search on "Abilene paradox") and people not wanting to say things that are politically incorrect and not wanting to confront differences. Or perhaps after loosing a few battles, some people just give up. And certainly how we select Directors ends up influencing how they behave. In short, it is fine to arrive at a "consensus", but the process of getting there can, and in a polically-charged world such as ICANN's, SHOULD be rough indeed. ICANN's "Consensus Policy" concept is that in the end, IF most people agree, then it can become a formal policy. But the process of getting there, IF you actually do get there, may be polite and civil (although perhaps not always) but there is no shortage of people publicly and loudly pointing out their disagreement. Alan
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Making no attempt to defend ICANN on these matters, I think that you are confusing "consensus policy" and "politeness" with not taking strong positions.
To me, politeness in this context is an explicit aversion to confrontation. Its inability to invoke policy unless everyone agrees simply leads to policy that offends nobody. In ICANN's current world driven by politics, money, and attempts by some to turn it into a defacto treaty organization, this means that any counter-initiative that asserts the public interest -- or attempts to curtail ICANN's own internal lust for growth -- is doomed to fail. The Westlake rationale against giving votes to At-Large was that Board members who were ("overly") assertive of the public interest would threaten the consensus process by confronting the existing inertia -- perhaps it would refuse to agree to policy that was seen to be against the public interest, even if everyone else on the Board agreed. Heaven forbid that they would block "compromises" that simply rewarded the most persistent bullies. In the worst-case scenario, they might even force *votes* and force individual Board members to account for their own decisions. How dare they! I sincerely thank the BGC ALAC review committee for resisting the worst of the Westlake report. Still, I but cannot help but wonder who gave Westlake its frames of reference, ones seemingly designed to keep At-Large docile, toothless and chasing its own tail?
In short, it is fine to arrive at a "consensus", but the process of getting there can, and in a polically-charged world such as ICANN's, SHOULD be rough indeed. That can only happen if the corners of ICANN that have traditionally gotten their way unchecked themselves learn to compromise. This is IMO unlikely but still remotely possible.
ICANN's "Consensus Policy" concept is that in the end, IF most people agree, then it can become a formal policy. But the process of getting there, IF you actually do get there, may be polite and civil (although perhaps not always) but there is no shortage of people publicly and loudly pointing out their disagreement. If there is public and loud disagreement from board members on a decided policy, then how is that result called a consensus? To me, that simply sounds like an informal vote in which the "winners" decline personal responsibility for their action, hiding behind the herd.
- Evan
Thank you for the input and insight (from the ex-Board Member); It seems that there was a lot deal of things that the entire community should have known since there was "consensus" and maybe within "politeness" - I wonder where there were elements of "diplomacy" in the process. Is there a way forward since some lessons have been learnt? The wheel is not spinning in snow or mud ... surely there are ideas and opinions that are forthcoming before ICANN Mexico is concluded.. . Yassin (needs to be space-moderated)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:21:46 -0500 From: > To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Making no attempt to defend ICANN on these matters, I think that you are confusing "consensus policy" and "politeness" with not taking strong positions.
To me, politeness in this context is an explicit aversion to confrontation. Its inability to invoke policy unless everyone agrees simply leads to policy that offends nobody. In ICANN's current world driven by politics, money, and attempts by some to turn it into a defacto treaty organization, this means that any counter-initiative that asserts the public interest -- or attempts to curtail ICANN's own internal lust for growth -- is doomed to fail.
The Westlake rationale against giving votes to At-Large was that Board members who were ("overly") assertive of the public interest would threaten the consensus process by confronting the existing inertia -- perhaps it would refuse to agree to policy that was seen to be against the public interest, even if everyone else on the Board agreed. Heaven forbid that they would block "compromises" that simply rewarded the most persistent bullies. In the worst-case scenario, they might even force *votes* and force individual Board members to account for their own decisions. How dare they!
I sincerely thank the BGC ALAC review committee for resisting the worst of the Westlake report. Still, I but cannot help but wonder who gave Westlake its frames of reference, ones seemingly designed to keep At-Large docile, toothless and chasing its own tail?
In short, it is fine to arrive at a "consensus", but the process of getting there can, and in a polically-charged world such as ICANN's, SHOULD be rough indeed. That can only happen if the corners of ICANN that have traditionally gotten their way unchecked themselves learn to compromise. This is IMO unlikely but still remotely possible.
ICANN's "Consensus Policy" concept is that in the end, IF most people agree, then it can become a formal policy. But the process of getting there, IF you actually do get there, may be polite and civil (although perhaps not always) but there is no shortage of people publicly and loudly pointing out their disagreement. If there is public and loud disagreement from board members on a decided policy, then how is that result called a consensus? To me, that simply sounds like an informal vote in which the "winners" decline personal responsibility for their action, hiding behind the herd.
- 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
_________________________________________________________________ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&...
Estimada Evan como tu tengo una relativa juventud en la política de ICANN - y asimismo coincido con tu expresión "...Esta cultura del consenso simplemente ha llevado a la gobernanza "lo que ofende Lo menos "en lugar de liderazgo o incluso de su afirmación publicada Misión. Todo en aras de la cortesía. Es incluso el arraigado.--" Pero deseo aclararte ésta forma de hacer las cosas de la ICANN no tiene nada que ver con el consenso, se trata de una expresión del proyecto político del imperialismo encarnada en el capitalismo. En muchos de nuestros países latinoamericanos, incluida la Argentina, hoy siguen dominando los mismos sectores sociales de antaño, los de gruesos billetes y abultadas cuentas bancarias. Ha mutado la imagen, ha cambiado la puesta en escena, se ha transformado el discurso, pero no se ha modificado el sistema económico, social y político de dominación. Incluso se ha perfeccionado. Hoy, con discurso "progre" o sin él, la misión estratégica que el capital transnacional y sus socias más estrechas, las burguesías locales, le asignaron a los gobiernos "progresistas" de la región -desde el Partido Justicialista argentino y el Frente Amplio uruguayo de Tabaré Vázquez hasta la concertación de Bachelet en Chile y el actual PT de Lula- consiste en lograr el retorno a la "normalidad" del capitalismo latinoamericano. Se trata de resolver la crisis orgánica reconstruyendo el consenso y la credibilidad de las instituciones burguesas para garantizar EL ORDEN. Es decir: la continuidad del capitalismo dependiente. En medio de toda esa fenomenal puesta en escena mediática "progre", donde el neoliberalismo aparece perfumado y con peinado de peluquería elegante, las percepciones de lo real son cada vez más complejas. Quizá por esto, el culto actual de la imagen funciona como un escapismo a una realidad cada vez más vacía de sentido y totalmente manipulada por un sistema de dominación interesado en el "consenso", en tanto negación del conflicto.- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yassin Mshana" <ymshana2003@hotmail.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: <ethinktanktz@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS Thank you for the input and insight (from the ex-Board Mem It seems that there was a lot deal of things that the entire community should have known since there was "consensus" and maybe within "politeness" - I wonder where there were elements of "diplomacy" in the process. Is there a way forward since some lessons have been learnt? The wheel is not spinning in snow or mud ... surely there are ideas and opinions that are forthcoming before ICANN Mexico is concluded.. . Yassin (needs to be space-moderated)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:21:46 -0500 From: > To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Making no attempt to defend ICANN on these matters, I think that you are confusing "consensus policy" and "politeness" with not taking strong positions.
To me, politeness in this context is an explicit aversion to confrontation. Its inability to invoke policy unless everyone agrees simply leads to policy that offends nobody. In ICANN's current world driven by politics, money, and attempts by some to turn it into a defacto treaty organization, this means that any counter-initiative that asserts the public interest -- or attempts to curtail ICANN's own internal lust for growth -- is doomed to fail.
The Westlake rationale against giving votes to At-Large was that Board members who were ("overly") assertive of the public interest would threaten the consensus process by confronting the existing inertia -- perhaps it would refuse to agree to policy that was seen to be against the public interest, even if everyone else on the Board agreed. Heaven forbid that they would block "compromises" that simply rewarded the most persistent bullies. In the worst-case scenario, they might even force *votes* and force individual Board members to account for their own decisions. How dare they!
I sincerely thank the BGC ALAC review committee for resisting the worst of the Westlake report. Still, I but cannot help but wonder who gave Westlake its frames of reference, ones seemingly designed to keep At-Large docile, toothless and chasing its own tail?
In short, it is fine to arrive at a "consensus", but the process of getting there can, and in a polically-charged world such as ICANN's, SHOULD be rough indeed. That can only happen if the corners of ICANN that have traditionally gotten their way unchecked themselves learn to compromise. This is IMO unlikely but still remotely possible.
ICANN's "Consensus Policy" concept is that in the end, IF most people agree, then it can become a formal policy. But the process of getting there, IF you actually do get there, may be polite and civil (although perhaps not always) but there is no shortage of people publicly and loudly pointing out their disagreement. If there is public and loud disagreement from board members on a decided policy, then how is that result called a consensus? To me, that simply sounds like an informal vote in which the "winners" decline personal responsibility for their action, hiding behind the herd.
- 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
_________________________________________________________________ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&...
At 18/02/2009 07:21 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
ICANN's "Consensus Policy" concept is that in the end, IF most people agree, then it can become a formal policy. But the process of getting there, IF you actually do get there, may be polite and civil (although perhaps not always) but there is no shortage of people publicly and loudly pointing out their disagreement. If there is public and loud disagreement from board members on a decided policy, then how is that result called a consensus? To me, that simply sounds like an informal vote in which the "winners" decline personal responsibility for their action, hiding behind the herd.
- Evan
As Karl points out, a Board may want to reach consensus, but ultimately, each Director has an obligation to vote their own conscience. Whether they always do or not may be another matter. The term "consensus" is sometime used to imply 100% agreement, and other times to imply general but not unanimous agreement. In most matters, ICANN uses the latter definition. In the specific case of a GNSO "Consensus Policy", the rules of the current GNSO say that 66% of the votes must approve (there is a weaker form, but that is not as binding on the Board). since the largest Constituency only had 22.2% of the votes, a policy can be classes as a GNSO Consensus policy without approval of all Constituencies. In creating the rules for the reformulated GNSO, some us fought very hard (and won) to ensure that this was maintained. We felt it was VERY important to be able to adopt a policy even if one group (the one that might be adversely affected by it) was kicking and screaming all the way. The registrar constituency did not agree with the Consensus Policy to limit the use of the AGP, but it passed, since more than 66% of the votes were for it. The Board approved the motion unanimously (as far as I can tell from the minutes). Whether that means all directors actually agreed with the policy, or none felt that it was sufficiently dangerous that the Board should overrule the GNSO, I cannot say. Alan
Alan Greenberg wrote:
... Whether that means all directors actually agreed with the policy, or none felt that it was sufficiently dangerous that the Board should overrule the GNSO, I cannot say.
Well, a board of directors does and must reserve to itself the ultimate final word on things. A good board can, however, arrange things so that that authority needs to be used only rarely. There is a middle ground - A question whether to approve/deny a measure that comes before the board may be evaluated not on its merits but rather on whether the creation of that measure occurred using the rules and procedures that the board has defined. In other words, one way to define a well run organization is to measure whether the board delegates its powers to its executives with sufficient specificity of procedure that the board's main question is whether those executives (and their staff) have followed those procedures. If those procedures are followed the outcome is presumed valid (and subject to adoption by the board) unless there is a concrete showing that some ill events occurred. (Being trained as an attorney I'm kind of familiar with the nuances of presumptions, so I hope that I haven't totally confused everyone.) Unfortunately in ICANN everything bubbles up to the board in its full glory and the board has to expend the effort to make a full review. That's not very efficient. ICANN's board has been too weak to require that its executives and their staff adhere to processes onto which the board can endow a presumption of validity. It is hard being a good board member - which is why I support the creation of a fund to reimburse board members for certain expenses, such as the hiring of legal, financial, or technical advisors or support staff, or things like board-member websites, etc. (And no, I don't believe that the chairman deserves a larger fund - all board members have to work equally hard to fulfill their duties.) What this means for the at-large is that we, the public and community of internet users, need to find means to enhance the seating of board members who are willing to work to change ICANN so that it is better structured to serve the public interest, whether that be through better policymaking or by being a less expensive institution. My own answer to that has been to advocate more direct elections of board members. Others among us suggest other, perhaps more effective, approaches. The main point is that we are all in the same boat - we all want a better internet and a better ICANN that serves the interests of the internet public rather than the interests of a relatively few ICANN industrial "stakeholders". I'm sorry if I keep coming back to procedure over the substance of particular matters - it's just that I think that over the long run procedure tends to dictate what becomes substance. --karl--
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
It seems to me -- despite my relative youth in ICANN politics -- that this culture of consensus has simply led to governance by "what offends the least" as opposed to leadership or assertion of even its published mission. All in the interest of politeness. It's even entrenched the
Yes you are relatively ignorant, or to put in in a better light innocent, of the ICANN way of doing things. ICANN has nothing to do with consensus. It is a self perpetuating bureaucracy and any references to consensus or inclusiveness is nothing more then a marketing campaign to keep the bureaucracy employed. cheers joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
It is not a matter of being ignorant or innocent - Transparency and doing the right thing by each individual should be uppermost - isnt that the case? I sincerely hope it is in every way..
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:45:32 -0500 From: baptista@publicroot.org To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
It seems to me -- despite my relative youth in ICANN politics -- that this culture of consensus has simply led to governance by "what offends the least" as opposed to leadership or assertion of even its published mission. All in the interest of politeness. It's even entrenched the
Yes you are relatively ignorant, or to put in in a better light innocent, of the ICANN way of doing things.
ICANN has nothing to do with consensus. It is a self perpetuating bureaucracy and any references to consensus or inclusiveness is nothing more then a marketing campaign to keep the bureaucracy employed.
cheers joe baptista
-- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 _______________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Yassin Mshana <ymshana2003@hotmail.com>wrote:
It is not a matter of being ignorant or innocent - Transparency and doing the right thing by each individual should be uppermost - isnt that the case? I sincerely hope it is in every way..
Nice words, great idea, and good intentions. But doing the right think is not upper most on the ICANN agenda. Now making it look like they are transparent, inclusive etc. etc. is the ICANN marketing plan which should not be confused with what in fact ICANN does. cheers joe baptista
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:45:32 -0500 From: baptista@publicroot.org To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
It seems to me -- despite my relative youth in ICANN politics -- that this culture of consensus has simply led to governance by "what offends the least" as opposed to leadership or assertion of even its published mission. All in the interest of politeness. It's even entrenched the
Yes you are relatively ignorant, or to put in in a better light innocent, of the ICANN way of doing things.
ICANN has nothing to do with consensus. It is a self perpetuating bureaucracy and any references to consensus or inclusiveness is nothing more then a marketing campaign to keep the bureaucracy employed.
cheers joe baptista
-- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 _______________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE _______________________________________________ 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
-- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bret Fausett -
cristian casas -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Franck Martin -
Joe Baptista -
Karl Auerbach -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight -
Yassin Mshana