Re: [alac] ALAC Statements to the Board - lessons learned
- To: Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [alac] ALAC Statements to the Board - lessons learned
- From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:33:05 +0100
Annette Muehlberg ha scritto:
I checked the real-time captioning. Vittorio's critique on how the board
handles ALACs inputs, e.g. our statement/proposals on transparency,
ended with the words:
“I HOPE THAT WE DON’T HAVE TO GO TO THE OMBUDSMAN TO GET INFORMATION
ABOUT HOW THE BOARD IS CONSIDERING WHAT WE SAY.”
Vint Cerf gave a very enlightening answer: “...AS I HAVE LISTENED TO
MANY OF THE EXCHANGES THIS WEEK, I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT WHAT HAPPENS IS
THAT WE SOMETIMES DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT A PARTY WHO HAS SAID SOMETHING
IS ALSO LOOKING SPECIFICALLY FOR A REPLY…
THIS IS NOT TO EXCUSE ANYTHING, BUT WHEN WE — IF WHEN YOU ARE
COMMUNICATING SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY TO THE BOARD AND AN EXPLICIT
RESPONSE IS EXPECTED, PROBABLY IT WOULDN’T HURT TO SAY THAT, JUST TO
UNDERSCORE THE POINT.”
From now on we will put a reminder on all our statements: ANSWER EXPECTED!
I didn't want to add that when one (being Chair of an Advisory
Committee) sends email to "person@xxxxxxxxx", with the person being one
high level officer of the corporation, containing a request by the
Committee, one would naturally assume that an answer is expected. At
least for basic courtesy.
Or, every time that we suggest that ICANN does something and ICANN
doesn't, we might simply assume an implicit "no" and draw our own
consequences from it.
vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...