Hello,
--- elliot noss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Patrick, I don't think openness equals agreeing with you. I think > your > email proves MY point. You describe in great detail all the > opportunities you had for input. There is NO requirement that you get > > your way or that people agree with you. With respect to alt root > issues > I don't. A perfect example of ICANN not doing the proper thing was WLS, though. They ignored the consensus process and recommendation of the Names Council that WLS be rejected, yet they've approved it - subject to an ongoing appeal, that they've never really acknowledged; it's been on the backburner since September 2002, see: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/brannon-letter-to-lynn-09sep02.htm I'm all for how ICANN is *suppposed* to work, but it's clear that in this case they ignored their own procedures, waved their hands about and accepted WLS anyway. Thankfully, there are contracts in place with Registrars to allow them to challenge this (we've managed to delay WLS by 18 months; could be even longer), but in other cases where there are not, folks are left scratching their heads, crying, or frustrated.... I don't mind "losing" a debate, when the other side has shown a massive consensus, etc., but our side "won" the WLS issue, overwhelmingly in the constituencies, yet still "lost" due to the Board shenanigans. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/
