[At-Large]  ICANN staff repudiates community call for change on Morality & Public Order
avri at acm.org
Tue Nov 23 06:34:03 UTC 2010
I wonder to what extent you or anyone on the Board really knows what the Staff is up to. As I understand it, your only real interface to the Staff is through the CEO, and that the Board does not accept Staff oversight as one of of its jobs.
I would suggest that those who work with the staff at all levels know better what is actually going on, as we deal with it every day in so many different ways. And let me point out that most all of the staff is doing their best to do what they think they are supposed to be doing, but that does not mean that this is necessarily what is best for ICANN. Determining what is best for ICANN is the job of those of us in the community, including the Board, and not the staff. So when Evan and others describe what is going on, people should take that seriously as opposed to just dismissing it as more uninformed staff bashing.
I understand and commend the feeling that you, as Board members and Board Liaisons, feel that it is a duty to stand up for the staff, but it would be a lot more helpful, if you were doing so from a point of oversight where you actually knew what was up.
On 22 Nov 2010, at 23:20, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Hi Evan.
> evan at telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>> In the latest version of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, ICANN staff has
>> essentially screwed its community.
> One very important clarification. I believe your issue is not with
> staff, but with the board. Blaming (and venting at) staff, especially
> when they are not at fault does not help anyone and makes it that much
> harder for ICANN as a community to get work done.
>> Despite broad agreement reached across members of the GAC, GNSO and At-Large
>> on issues related to Morality and Public Order -- and a report that was
>> unanimously endorsed by ALAC -- ICANN staff have explicitly rejected all of
>> our basic requests. Literally, only the most cosmetic -- changing the name
>> from "Morality and Public Order" to "Limited Public Interest" -- approach
>> was taken.
> Well, I was going to point you to the board response to this, so you
> could understand our reasoning, but I can't find public
> documentation. :-(
> The board resolution at
> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.9 is
> where the board recorded its decision, but there isn't a lot of detail
> there. But I can assure you that the board discussed a number of
> individual points in detail.
> The details at
> give some of the rational, but are not written in a way that
> necessarily makes clear where the board weighed in and to what degree,
> I would suggest that before folk spend too many cycles responding to
> this in a formal manner, they would request that ICANN (board/staff)
> provide clarification (if it is needed) as to why the WG
> recommendations were not made. And, actually, wouldn't it be more
> appropriate to raise those questions first within the WG and have them
> do the followup? Presumably they aren't happy either, and that seem
> the natural place from which to raise any objections...
> Discussions would be most productive if they could be focused on the
> individual recommendations and why or why they were not accepted. And
> if the above rational doesn't provide that info, by all means ask for
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large