[ga] RE: in response to a question about a letter regarding ICANN reform

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Joanna, since the link didn't resolve, and I couldn't see the letter to be sure it was the 
one I thought it was... etc. 

However, I can only speak for one company who signed on. We have an internal policy review process and the letter was reviewed through that process and agreed to. 

Each of the other authorizers is responsible for their own process.  They apparently agreed with the concepts in the letter. 

What else is in question?






-----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:02 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; ga@dnso.org; DannyYounger@cs.com
Subject: RE: in response to a question about a letter regarding ICANN
reform


Marilyn,
I take that as a yes to my question about your authorship of the letter.
Apologies for the earlier bad link. Please answer Danny's questions about
how each organization was authorized by its members to arrive at the
decision to support the contents of the letter.

Thanks,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:27 PM
> To: Joanna Lane; ga@dnso.org; DannyYounger@cs.com
> Subject: in response to a question about a letter regarding ICANN reform
>
>
> Joanna, couldn't get the link to resolve. But, I'd like to be
> responsive to your question.
>
> I changed the subject because I don't agree with the
> interpretation conveyed by the former subject line. :-) It seemed
> better to have a more neutral subject line so that we can
> facilitate an open discussion about any questions.
>
> SO, I will note that if you are asking about a letter which
> includes the names of several companies and associations
> addressed to Sec. Donald Evans, DOC, regarding views on the
> Evolution and Reform process,  and has AT&T's name along with
> several companies, associations, etc. and it involved AT&T's view
> and position on ICANN issues, then I would be the appropriate contact.
>
> The letter from these groups was a joint collaboration by the
> parties who signed it.  So, many parties contributed to the
> concepts of the initial drafting, and edits to achieve a  final
> version which could reflect the views of such a wide group of parties.
>
> I'm interested though in your thought that is was strange not to
> have names of individuals. In my experience, it is not strange at
> all for organizations to lend their organizational names, since
> really, when it comes down to positions, they are the positions
> of a company, organization, or group, not just a private view of
> an individual employee of such a group.
>
> So, even though some  of us might  have a private view, it is
> really the view of a business, or organization or association
> that gets conveyed in such a letter.
>
> Does that help? Let  me know if you have further questions. Marilyn
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:07 AM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; ga@dnso.org; DannyYounger@cs.com
> Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN, The Troika & Fraud
>
>
> Marilyn,
> Did you write this letter?. If not, do you know who did? It seems odd that
> it is not signed by any individual.
>
> > Upon taking a closer look at the private sector letter (posted at
> > http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/private-sector-organiz
> > ations-to-us
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
>

--
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