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

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Danny - don't you know - the only real users of the Internet are the ICANN
board members. That's why they are the only ones queried for consensus... Or
at least that is how it seems. What I want to know is that in today's
Post-9/11 and Post-Enron/Post-WorldCom debacles, why ICANN thinks that it
can operate Status Quo.

What I propose is a formal end-to-end audit of ICANN, its finances and its
practices and that as "the" sole US Government appointee, that ICANN's
status as a Public trust demands this type of credibility.

Todd Glassey


----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <froomkin@law.miami.edu>; <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; <icann-board@icann.org>; <NVictory@ntia.doc.gov>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?


> 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.

perjury before a government committee would likely collapse US government
support for ICANN

> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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