[council] RE: [At-Large] 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: 3730 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090516/996dcb21/winmail.dat>