Hi,

View it would be reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt, but if there
was evidence of apologetic staff accepting responsibility. i.e. to avoid
accepting “victimless crime“ types of situations.

Just read
http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/27/former-us-congressman-howard-berman-joins-lobbying-firm/
and related it to a list post by Robin of July 2009 subject: “FT article on
ICANN and IRT issues“ which somewhat increased my doubts of staff innocence.

--sent from a handheld-- excuse brevity and any typos--
On Mar 27, 2013 7:18 PM, "Klaus Stoll" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>   Dear Friends
>
> Greetings. Just a thought. Yes, things went seriously wrong, yes, there is
> a case to go to the ombudsman,  but should we not spend as much energy on
> solving a problem then on condemning it?. I was thinking in the last days:
> “why did staff do that?”, and I have come to the conclusion that they
> simply did not know better. They need help and they need it in a way they
> can relate to, understand and use in the day to day process. Yes, they
> should have consulted, but are there the open channels to do so? The
> questions for me is, do we have the lines of communications and the trust
> between those involved to have constructive and effective communication
> between staff and constituencies? I guess not. Are we non communicating
> communicators? Pointing fingers at this moment does not get us further and
> anywhere, searching for ways to avoid similar situations in the future
> does! Would it not be worthwhile to spend a lot of effort of trying to get
> the lines of communication open again?
>
> I know it is not a popular one, but it is a thought.
>
> Klaus
> *   *
>