[At-Large] FW: Respectful Online Communication and Behavior

[Roberto Gaetano]

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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Karl 
> Auerbach
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 May 2009 20:47
> To: At-Large Worldwide
> Cc: avri at acm.org; council at gnso.icann.org; ccnso-council at icann.org; 
> louie at equinix.com; Disspain; janis.karklins at icann.org; jun at wide.ad.jp; 
> Steve Crocker; Charles A. (Chuck) Gomes; liaison6c at gnso.icann.org; 
> policy at 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3822 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20090517/8d302f7a/attachment.dat>