[NA-Discuss] registrant advisory committee

[Danny Younger]

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 ICANN’s 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
ICANN’s 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 I’ll 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 that’s 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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 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