Re: [ga] Re: Reconsideration
Dear Stuart, The main issue here is the crediblity of the reconsideration procedure. The complaint concerns complex cascading requests, denials, interviews, responses. The request of Danny is for an audit of the whole procedure, so the Members and possible plaintifs we are feel protected by the fairness of this procedure. I do not want to enter the case which is not my cup of tea as Vint would say. I am far more concerned by the terse denial you made in 2 hours 29 minutes and 30 seconds. The entire world knows the decorum and the delay your legal culture associates with an appeal on a simple thing as a ballot recount. I do not feel that 2 hours 29 minutes and 30 second permit a serious investigation of this case wich is convincingly described to us as complex and which occured before you joined the ICANN. Your response does not address any of the procedural points risen by Mr. Smith (might they be proper or unproper, this is not the issue). A very simple yet solemnly risen question by our Chair on the most serious issue - with certainly a wide support on this GA and the whole attention of most - should not become a plain case of non-transparency that we would observe in real time. What is at stake is our trust into the ICANN. A concern you certainly share with us. So please take your time and help us clarify it. Jefsey Morfin On 04:16 08/08/01, M. Stuart Lynn said: Mr. Smith has indeed sought reconsideration on just one occasion, and his complaint was carefully considered by the Reconsideration Committee and the ICANN Board. The committee's recommendation can be viewed at <http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm>. I think a review of that document. A response to Mr. Smith's attempt to reargue the matter appears at <http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-response-24apr00.htm>. A fair review of those documents shows that Mr. Smith's allegation is not supported by the facts.
|