Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all assembly members,

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Vint,
>
> One of the responsibilities of the Board is to "recognize consensus".
>
> 1.  3453 petitioners endorsed an Anti-WLS petition posted at
> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?antiwls

  Good point.  Not only did this petition serve and an example
that WLS was not supported by a consensus, it also shows
some actual "Measure" of that fact.   In addition I would add
here that our [INEGroup] members voted very strongly
against WLS as well.  We also communicated this to
DOC/NTIA as well as the ICANN BoD.

>
> 2.  A review of the comments posted to the Public Forums shows an
> overwhelming objection to the proposed WLS
> 3.  Members of the General Assembly were similarly overwhelmingly in
> opposition to the WLS
> 4.  Every single constituency with the exception of the gTLDs came out in
> opposition to the WLS
> 5.  The DNSO voted to reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to
> enable it to introduce its proposed WLS
> 6.  The DNSO also voted to reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12
> months
>
> and yet the Board has resolved to launch the WLS.
>
> In your testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
> Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on 8 February 2001 you
> stated, "ICANN is a consensus development body, not a regulatory agency.  Its
> decisions are intended to reflect consensus in the Internet community, not
> simply the policy preferences of those who happen to sit on its Board at any
> given moment."
>
> As I am sure that you did not willfully lie to the US Government, I can only
> assume that the Board's decision on WLS must reflect a consensus in the
> Internet community that I have somehow failed to notice.  Otherwise one might
> conclude that you have chosen to act in defiance of the community will at a
> time when the Department of Commerce has been looking for assurances that the
> views of all Internet stakeholders are being heard.
>
> Perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate the presence of such
> community consensus so that we don't arrive at the conclusion that your
> collective actions represent simply the policy preferences of those who now
> sit on the Board... Unless of course, the Board is now of the view that it
> has no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the consensus of the
> community.

  I think it has been pretty clear sense MdR 2000 that the ICANN BoD
is not particularly interested in the "Measured" or any other kind
of legitimate Consensus of the internet community...  A number of the
several year long actions of Worldcom's executives, of which Vint
is one, shows this poor attitude to be more pervasive than originally
thought...

>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html