They make my management look open, transparent and honest, something I never thought possible.
But they are a bunch of C's none the less.
Last week, a group of retired judges slammed domain-name overseer ICANN for breaking its own bylaws by having failed to "act fairly, neutrally [and] non-discriminatorily" in a dispute over the .africa top-level domain. Yesterday, we revealed that ICANN's staff redacted the judges' final report to remove all evidence that the …
"The accountability proposal should add only the minimal amount of extra structure and not introduce undetermined risks."
However, they failed to mention that the "undetermined risks" are to ICANN and it's board.
Time to put on the boots... with all the horse crap coming out of ICANN, there has to be a pony in there somewhere.
This should never have happened in the first place. This tld should go to the ZACR which is supported by the African Union. The DotConnectAfrica CEO apparently said "thanks to God for helping to correct this act of victimization" in regards to ICANN's actions here, and she obviously also wrote the Wikipedia article about her company. Too weird.
On what basis should the TLD go to ZACR, they did not even have the required endorsement when they applied and misrepresented their application and was assisted by their insider friends at ICANN. I see no wrong thanking God for a win. As far as writing her own Wikipedia, I don't know that, but it appears likely she has her critics as her best followers. See main man for ZACR who does the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mpisanev/sandbox/ZADNA
The right thing to to is to perform an honest assessment, and identify what should have been done better. You apologize for what you should have done better (and since no one and no entity is perfect there is always room for a little humility). You talk about what ACTIONS you are talking to change for the better.
This is just going to be a huge PR nightmare for them, and the only way it makes any sense is if they are afraid that anything they say will be used against them unfairly in a lawsuit.
Then you do the right thing, after the lawyers have sufficiently mangled it. Even then maybe that's a bad idea since it will encourage a business culture that encourages more lawsuits and more bad PR.
How could DCA CEO be in with ICANN when she is suing them? and won if I might add. She has been fighting ICANN publicly over corruption all over the media, for most it is not "hard to get close enough to get a good view" maybe you should try as well.
The staff itself redacted a report without telling the board before presenting it to the board.
Dear God, that is wrong is so many ways I don't even know where to start. If I were on a board and I learned that that happened I guarantee said staff would be out the door with a lawsuit and without a paycheck in the following seconds.
Apparently, the gigantic level of hubris on the board has, like a chemical spill, seeped into the lower layers of hierarchy. It's starting to look like an infestation, actually. One that can only be cleansed by fire.
ICANN has demonstrated the capacity to ignore its own policy which has in part been been developed by the multistakeholder community. The CCWG on the IANA transition is working very hard in Paris right now to iron out a plan. Assuming they succeed, why should any stakeholder trust ICANN to faithfully execute policy?
Second point: this whole situation raises grave questions about the board. We can safely assume that the board was aware of at least the controversy surrounding this decision. That said the board was either ignorant of the actions detailed in the report which speaks to its failure as a governance and oversight body or it knew of the the actions and did nothing, making it complicit in malfeasance.
Trust is built through parallel words and deeds over time. ICANN since the NTIA announcement seems hell bent on eroding that trust.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021