Re: [ga] The BoD - Ratings and/or evaluations by stakeholders

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

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I want this a rating and not a berating.

  As do I.  So is such a comment of yours here a suggestion or in a
suggesting nature?  Seems so.  Is so, why and what is the purpose?
Also this is not an answer to my question(s).  Perhaps others can be
more direct instead of coy or obtuse.  I hope so.

>  Criteria or Criterion should be
> developed I think the first one should be open.

  Open?  Ok.  Open in what way?  Do you mean open as in a free form?
If so that is not a problem. But could create or develop into a problem.
I was trying to avoid that from happening.  I guess from your response
here, you are not?  Please advise.

>  From a statistical background
> I think we should do this before every meeting and then just afterward.

  Agreed.  However it should be based upon some basic principals that
are in line with the MoU and the White paper.  Or did you have something
else specifically in mind?  Please advise here also.

>
> What I really want is open and transparent and just here on the GA.

  The GA does not represent the entire stakeholder community.  Of course
neither does the DNSO or ICANN as a whole.

>  I want it
> easy and non secure because I don't want to run up a tab on this and I want it
> ongoing.

  That's fine.

>  I was thinking a sublist that any of us could visit and/or compile,
> may be helpful.

  Great!  We [INEGroup] will get busy on this right away.  But I
do not think we shall restrict it to the GA, for reasons I stated
above.

>
>
> Actually what I kind of want it as a war chest.

  War Chest?  For what?  I don't think this Rating/evaluation of BoD
members or staff members of ICANN should be a witch hunt.

>  Accountability being
> paramount.  We are ready for the at large and I truly believe that a voting
> track record will be helpful.

  Yes accountability has always been  or should have been paramount.
To date as far as the ICANN BOD and staff have been concerned
accountability has been nearly nonexistent.

  We are still far from ready for the At-Large.  The ALSC final report
had few substantive comments on 11/12/01.  What comments were
available were mostly grandstanding and milk toast except Karl A's.
Have you seen the recent news posting that comment on this?
Perception is 90% of reality, Eric.  Any good marketing person
know this as you should know....

>
>
> any input is appreciated, this is a child and not a set in stone idea, please
> help develop.

  Oh ok etched in Jello.  Understood.  Well than it would seem that if
this idea is only a "Play Thing", what is the projected value?

>
>
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all assembly members,
> >
> >   Not a bad idea here Eric.  But how or against what do you wish or
> > believe they should be rated?  Are offers of categories what you had
> > in mind?  Please advise.
> >
> >   What about the ICANN Staff members?  Do or don't you believe
> > they should also be rated?  Are there different criterion by which they
> > should be rated?  Please advise.
> >
> >   I know that each biannually I am rated in a fitness evaluation.  So
> > are our board members.  I believe this is pretty much a standard
> > practice in most industries and businesses.  I know that my continued
> > employment as CEO is directly dependent on these evaluations/ratings.
> > I also am quite sure that this is true in most industries as well...
> >
> >   As you may recall, my personal position is that all but two of the
> > BoD members should be fired immediately.  But I am willing
> > to garner a list of areas that the BOD members can/should or could
> > be rated on or against from our members.  We should have something
> > in about three days.
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Rather than just lofting hateful overall nasty criticism at our board
> > > lets rate them.  Someone better at this than I am may want to build a
> > > template.  We can establish about five categories and rate them from one
> > > to ten (or negative included although that is largely not constructive)
> > > We seem to create a "Boogie man" most the time when dealing with the
> > > board.  One thing I noticed Danny does (did?) quite well was see them as
> > > individuals and approach them as such.  Also maybe if we do this right
> > > we can get position statements from each of them.
> > >
> > > I think this is fair and honest work for the GA.  Perhaps the categories
> > > should be like our five sublists.
> > > Accountability is a problem and I suggest this as a manner to create
> > > some.  I think we will all be amazed at how little we know about them
> > > and their positions.
> > >
> > >          Vinton G. Cerf, Chairman
> > >                 Position on Transfer?
> > >          Alejandro Pisanty, Vice-Chairman
> > >                 Position on UDRP?
> > >          Amadeu Abril i Abril
> > >                 Position on ccTLDs
> > >          Karl Auerbach
> > >                 Position on the NC?
> > >          Robert Blokzijl
> > >                 Position on the restructuring?
> > >          Ivan Moura Campos
> > >                 Position on the New gTLDs
> > >          Lyman Chapin (beginning 1 October 2001)
> > >                 Position on Security
> > >          Jonathan Cohen
> > >
> > > And so on and so forth.
> > >
> > >          Philip Davidson
> > >          Frank Fitzsimmons
> > >          Ken Fockler (until 30 September 2001)
> > >          Masanobu Katoh
> > >          Hans Kraaijenbrink
> > >          Sang-Hyon Kyong
> > >          M. Stuart Lynn
> > >          Andy Mueller-Maguhn
> > >          Jun Murai
> > >          Nii Quaynor
> > >          Helmut Schink
> > >          Linda S. Wilson
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance for any consideration.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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