| ||At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN||
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Cavebear meets stonewall
Log in/Create an Account
| 36 comments
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
From: Mike Roberts
Subject: [ALSC-Forum] You Are Abusing Our Intelligence
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 11:36:44 -0800
Stop this nonsense.
There is a published budget for ICANN that includes the budget for
the At Large study. The CEO reports to the Board regularly on budget
accomplishment and that report is rendered and archived publicly.
Not only is there no malfeasance, but the fiscal conservatism of the
committee allowed the Board to extend its term to March 2002 without
having to find additional funds.
There is a Finance Committee of the Board that reviews budget and
financial data provided by management and makes reports to the full
Board that are also presented and archived publicly.
There is an Audit Committee of the Board that reviews all accounting
and financial management policies of the corporation and makes
reports to the full Board that are presented and archived publicly.
There is an external audit firm that annually reviews the
corporation's financial results and renders an opinion on them based
on generally accepted accounting principles for non-profit
organizations. The opinion and accompanying financial statements are
posted on ICANN's website. The lead partner of the audit firm has an
annual closed door session with the non-management Directors of the
Audit Committee during which any deficiencies in the corporation's
financial systems and financial management are discussed and
corrective action required, if any, is adopted.
The corporation renders annual financial reports to the State of
California and to the Internal Revenue Service, both of which have
oversight and investigative powers in the event of any discrepancies.
None of ICANN's reports to these agencies has triggered an oversight
You and others are conducting a witch hunt for which there is no
witch. It's past time to move on to topics that actually have some
promise of assisting the DNS community in its work.
At 9:36 -0800 12/8/01, Eric Dierker wrote:
>This message was posted to the GA. I felt it appropriate to repost it here.
>this problem is going to explode. In all my young years I have never seen a
>situation where a refusal to disclose and provide that which one should, did
>not result in the revelation of serious malfeasance.
>Here we have the refusal of the ALSC to submit detailed reports of their
>spending and billing to ICANN. Why? How could that be harmful to anyone?
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>> Mr. Cerf, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Younger,
>> The quoted letter of Mr. Younger to Mr. Lynn reflects only partly the
>> concerns that ICANN Users may have. Our common interest is obviously that
>> the ICANN fulfills its missions to the best common interest. Mission creep
>> and mission sleep - as per Mr. Diecker's adequate wording - are both the
>> primary matters of concern as in every human organization. Also a mani
>> pulite spirit is of the essence as in every organization indirectly
>> affecting external large budgets and revenues and providing personal or
>> professional fames. Concerns about Internet Participants and people is a
>> duty as for any international body which mainly translates into
>> transparency, equality to all, democratic consensus based spirit and
>> obligation not to enlarge the financial, lingual and digital divides. Last
>> but not least professionalism is a necessity to make sure that the
>> management is consistent, the action is not contested and the image is
>> protected and developed.
>> Mr. Younger asks for a review of the Corporation's actions by Mr. Lynn. I
>> am afraid Mr. Lynn has already provided publicly such a review in terms I
>> personally found shocking and as such a proof of the Mr. Auerbach's
>> reclamations at least regarding the Staff's attitude. I questioned that
>> evaluation of mine publicly on the GA as I could be wrong: it was confirmed.
>> At this stage I suppose no one wants a clash nor to display too many things
>> in public. So it is time to call on Mr. Vint Cerf. I am a naval officer and
>> a public right trainee. In my culture the commander bears the full
> > responsibility even if he is for nothing in the problem. This has obviously
>> ultimate disadvantages, but from experience it has also immense advantages
>> as it gives a full yet controlled authority to treat quickly and nicely any
>> problem internally, at its root.
>> I must say that I take also that call to Mr. Vint Cerf as a test to know
>> who is the real ICANN CO. To my French law and international naval law
> > readings Mr. Stuart Lynn is the President or the EXO. I must also say that
> > in both legal cultures of mine denying or imposing constraints to a Member
>> of the Board in accessing information he is entitled to is a delict one and
>> a military fault in the other that neither a Chair nor a CO has the legal
>> ability to cover. Is that different under the US or the local
>> This matter is highly preoccupaying. I make no mistery that I disagree with
>> the present policy of the ICANN, structure, strategies and ways of
>> management, understanding of the Networks structure. But I never hidden
>> either that, if may be I do not understand it in the same way, I fully
>> support Mike Roberts word "we the ICANN", though improvements towards
>> agreements. This is by nature what a consensu is about.
>> That a Board Member preoccupated openly by concerns about "democracy" and
>> transparency is purposedly made to "sleep" when he wants to investigate on
>> the "creep" and on the "mani pulite" aspects is too much "unprofessional".
>> This affects the five main priorities I - and probably most of the other
>> ICANN Users - assign to the ICANN. This is another reason to call for a
>> professional review and an apeasement by the top before it comes to the
>> bottom through the media, the courts or the international arena.
>> I suppose that this letter reflects in its own way the thinking of a number
>> of ICANN Users on this GA and in other fora. It looks and does hope for a
>> peaceful settlement. But I am afraid this is the last internal escalation
>> we have on the real root of the ICANN.
>> Best regards.
>> Jefsey Morfin
>> PS. I thank those who have already responded to my proposition to study the
>> incorporation of an ICANN User Association. To be on that project study
>> group and bootstrap send me only a mail. I underline that this project - as
>> it start developing - is in accordance with the spirit of this letter irt
>> the ICANN: five identified priorities, an international and real network
>> oriented point of view, an active support and cooperation to the mission,
>> suggestions to reduce the sleep and a firm opposition to the creep.
>> At 09:16 08/12/01, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>> >Mr. Lynn,
>> >My North American At-Large Director, Karl Auerbach, has once more posted a
>> >series of comments regarding the "absolute right" of a Director to inspect
>> >and copy corporate documents, a right that he claims you are
>>denying to him.
>> >When I hear an argument by my representative that insists that this
>> >Corporation under your stewardship is engaged in applying its
>> >practices inequitably so as to single him out as a particular party for
>> >disparate treatment, such actions not being justified by either substantial
>> >or reasonable cause, I have a legitimate right to be concerned
>>that ICANN is
>> >in violation of its Bylaws.
>> >As Mr. Auerbach's complaints on this subject matter have been set
>>forth in a
>> >number of fora over the course of several months, and as ICANN's failure to
>> >resolve this concern continues to cast doubt upon the integrity of our
>> >Corporation, this impasse now begins to affect all of us. Accordingly, in
>> >the interest of resolving this matter, allow me to request that a review of
>> >the Corporation's actions with respect to Mr. Auerbach's right of
>> >be undertaken by the full Board.
>> >Please advise if you will honor such request for review.
>> >Danny Younger
[ Reply to This | Parent
Mr. Auerbach responds to Mr. Roberts on the ALSC list. There's also a thread on the DNSO GA list. |
I was going to wait until after the archives are posted to report on the recent CIRA [administrators of the Canadian .ca ccTLD] General Meeting here, but will cover a few relevant points now. CIRA's meeting was webcast (in two languages, English and French, Canada is officially a bilingual country), and included a mechanism for online voting. Any .ca registrant is considered a voting general member of CIRA (the general membership also elects nine of the twelve CIRA BoD members, one of the remaining three is appointed to represent end-user interests). The general membership votes on the appointment of the external auditors.
Compare and contrast. CIRA is only a year old yet somehow has managed a number of things that ICANN has spent a few years promising will happen real soon now. It was Mr. Roberts at the helm of ICANN for most of that time whilst it went in circles, floundered, and reversed course. The most polite thing that can be said is that he lacks credibility. Less politely, one could muse whether he knew exactly what he was doing. If not, he was in the wrong job. If so, who was he really working for? -g
[ Reply to This | Parent
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com