I recall the amount of time that I invested in an Ombudsman complaint just to ensure that ICANN would finally fill the position of Public Participation Manager. As such, I have been frustrated to see the misuse of this office by its current occupant. Kieren's recent message is not a one-off aberration (as evinced by the similar tone of a message that was sent to the cpsr governance list last year): [excerpt] Kieren: "I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this list. I am ICANNs general manager of public participation. That means I consider it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant levels within ICANN. I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I would request that people make use of that. Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the job done. So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN if ICANN is going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts as possible. They will be listened to. If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason, then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a helpful outside perspective however, please do respond. The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANNs sites on 6 June (note: not on this governance mailing list I will not be considering material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely and Ill stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But thats only if the material is useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time." http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-05/msg00158.html I would endorse an escalation. --- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Michael Maranda wrote:
Also, for the record, I am greatly offended by Mr. Kieran McCarthy's tone on the At Large listserv. I will reserve comment on Kieren's general competence, given what were IMO serious mis-handling of a number of issues at the Delhi meeting (translations, web sites, outreach, public feedback, etc.).
On this issue, I strongly agree with Michael.
What do others think? I'm fully prepared to escalate Michael's complaint up the ICANN food chain.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping