RE: [nc-transfer] TF transfers

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

I am trying to follow this, but has the GA put forth or does it intend to
put forth a representative to this Task Force or are we just arguing whether
we call her a "GA represntatiatve" or a "registrant representative."  

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 1:48 PM
To: nc-transfer@dnso.org
Cc: mcade@att.com; ross@tucows.com; ebroitman@register.com;
Michael@palage.com; bbeckwith@netsol.com; mueller@syracuse.edu;
pdeblanc@usvi.net; tim@tmdenton.com; mcf@uwm.edu
Subject: [nc-transfer] TF transfers


Phil,

You wrote:  "It would be premature to agree to a registrants/individuals 
representation in a NC task force before we can give thought as the NC to
the 
wider issue."  

Pardon me?  The last three years haven't been a sufficiently long enough
time 
frame within which to consider the issue of individuals' representation?  Or

is it that you simply need more time to find other creative ways to deny
them 
participation in your private club?

The ICANN Board has already resolved "that the Board concurs with the ALSC's

conclusion that Individual Internet users have a significant stake in
ICANN's 
activities, should have the opportunity to participate in ICANN, and that 
representation should accompany participation for informed, sustained 
involvement of interested individuals in ICANN policy and decision-making".

Resolution [01.127]

Have you now decided to act against the wishes of the Board as well as the 
clear language within the Bylaws that allows interested parties to 
participate in the substantive work of the DNSO?  

A request has been made by a former candidate to the Board of ICANN who
seeks 
to represent the registrant community in thisTF task force, one whom you
have 
described as interested and competent.   Are you stating for the record that

registrants will not be accorded equal stature in this Task Force?