Hi,
I doubt it would make a difference to those who hate us on principle.
Or based on our ontogeny
A last point on attaboys, they come off as condescending.
Especially when they come from people you consider your inferiors.
In fact to those who consider us to be lowlifes,
an attaboy is as bothersome as criticism,
perhaps even more so.
And they don't all hate us.
I think we worry way too much about what the Board thinks of us.
avri
On 06-Nov-14 10:17, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> So can we right a congratulatory letter?
> I am not kidding. We criticize so often, and board members do appear
> to be aggrieved in some measure by that criticism....a nice "attaboy"
> note might be welcome.
> cheers stephanie
> On 2014-11-05, 14:01, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Yes, I'm encouraged by the board's letter to GAC on this issue and
>> its defense of the critical role of the GNSO in ICANN's policy
>> development process. I'm also happy to read the board's concern for
>> following the process stated in the organization's bylaws. Better
>> late than never!
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 1:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
>>
>>> I think this is a very welcome and appropriate action by the board.
>>> And a very welcome push back against some GAC members who seem to
>>> think the GACs role is whatever they would like it to be, and a very
>>> solid and appropriate defence of the GNSOs (and therefore
>>> multi-stakeholder policy making) in policy development.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 Nov 2014, at 1:39 pm, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [council] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair
>>>> regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development
>>>> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 04:33:11 +0000
>>>> From: Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Council members,
>>>>
>>>> You and your communities will likely be interested in the latest
>>>> letter sent
>>>> by Board Chair Steve Crocker to new GAC Chair Thomas Schneider,
>>>> responding
>>>> to that part of the GAC advice in its London Communique in which
>>>> the GAC
>>>> commented that protections for Red Cross designations ought not to be
>>>> conditioned on a PDP:
>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-schneider-03
>>>>
>>>> nov14-en.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Pertinent parts of Dr Crocker¹s letter include the following
>>>> excerpt: "While
>>>> the GAC may participate in the policy development process, and has
>>>> a role to
>>>> ³provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to
>>>> concerns of
>>>> governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction
>>>> between
>>>> ICANN¹s policies and various laws and international agreements or
>>>> where they
>>>> may affect public policy issues,² the GNSO has the authority to
>>>> recommend
>>>> substantive policies on topics that are within the scope of ICANN¹s
>>>> mission
>>>> statement, has potentially broad applicability to multiple
>>>> situations or
>>>> organizations, is likely to have lasting value or applicability,
>>>> and will
>>>> establish a guide or framework for future decision-making. The
>>>> Board has
>>>> concerns about the advice in the London Communiqué because it
>>>> appears to be
>>>> inconsistent with the framework established in the Bylaws granting
>>>> the GNSO
>>>> authority to recommend consensus policies to the Board, and the
>>>> Board to
>>>> appropriately act upon policies developed through the bottom-up
>>>> consensus
>>>> policy developed by the GNSO.²
>>>>
>>>> Dr Crocker¹s letter also serves to ³kick off² the prescribed Board-GAC
>>>> consultation process envisaged in the ICANN Bylaws in instances
>>>> where the
>>>> Board disagrees with GAC advice.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Mary
>>>>
>>>> Mary Wong
>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>>>> Email:[log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
