Re: [ga] Board descisions

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Siegfried and all remaining assembly members,

  The ICANN BoD has been behaving badly almost from the beginning of this
process...

Siegfried Langenbach wrote:

> Mr Chairman, members of the ICANN board,
>
>  these is an open mail expressing my concerns about the way
> ICANN's board is acting.
>
>  as an individual who was and is involved in these process from the
> very beginning I feel to have the right to address all of you.
>
>  It seems to me that, in contrary to the original intention, decisions
> are taken from board, even worse from boards excom only (or from
> staff?), without proper consultation of NC or DNSO and equivalent
> bodies.
>  Yes, you have the power to do so, but you should be aware that
> on the long run you will loose credibility. Are you discussing
> matters to be decided by the board, with those which elected you ?
> Perhaps, but I never heard of that. Instead you are using the very
> old argument of time-pressure to skip proper consensus building.
>
>  Let me give you some examples:
>
> 1.) selection of new TLD's . Without going into details : The way
> how Joe Sims directed the board, by having them voting 3 (three!!!)
> times until the board recognized how Joe wanted them to vote
> (change .web to .info), showed the interested how familiar the
> board was with the matter they were deciding. Consultation could
> have helped.
>
> 2.) Internationalizing of domainnames or multi-lingual-mess. With
> all respect, these is nationalizing not internationalizing : are you
> really convinced that toshiba will use the japanese equivalent as
> domainname internationally? It could have some sence if national
> ccTLD's would do it, but they have too much respect for the
> process to overpass IETF and other. Nobody seems to care about
> the practicably : making money is more important. Should have
> been worked on before starting a so called testbed. Most confusing
> is the fact that ICANN on one side warns on the other side
> supports VeriSign's activities.
>
> last not least
> 3.) Splitting com-net-org registry / registrar. I simply refuse to
> believe that the board is willing to cancel that part of the contract.
> The argument astonishing : One of the main intentions of the whole
> construct was to weaken the power of an monopolist (NSI), now we
> seem to see that it works (does it really?) we try to disrupt that
> process instead to be happy that it works as it was intended to do.
> I might be worng but I could not find that the matter was brought to
> NC and DNSO...
>
>  I recognize that I am only an individual, perhaps with strange ideas
> such as that I would prefer the slower and not so easy democratic
> way instead of the more efficient board-alone decisions, but
> remember an head without an body is not really what you want.
>
>  Elected members should be responsible to those which elected
> them, but not only at election time.
>
> Siegfried Langenbach
> joker.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html