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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

Danny - you have been doing a stunning job in highlighting the massive
breaches of process and policy by ICANN's Board.  Keep up the good
work - I for one really appreciate your efforts.  

DPF

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:02:55 EDT, 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
>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.

--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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