I agree with Jay in his complaint, and will add that it is my clear
impression that it is the ICANN Board of Directors and the ICANN
Interim President collectively that are at the root of these
difficulties.
Further, it is becoming more and more clear that until someone does
somthing serious to get the attention of the BoD to this issue, they
are going to just coast along as they are, hoping that in the end the
US Government will not have any options left but to just go along with
whatever ICANN wishes to do without oversight.
Thanks you for listening;-)...\Stef
>From your message Fri, 05 Feb 1999 01:45:19 -0500:
}
}
}
}Hello Becky,
}
}Please consider this a formal complaint wrt to
}the recently released meeting minutes of the ICANN
}Board of Directors' Meeting held on January 17th.
}It would appear that ICANN is not fulfilling its
}mandate as outlined in the White Paper, in the MoU
}with your department, nor in its own By-Laws.
}
}Specifically, the meeting in question was conducted
}without the required public notice, and without the
}required public comment period as outlined in Article
}3, Section 3 of the ICANN By-Laws. How else will the
}Internet community have an opportunity to comment on
}decisions likely to affect them?
}
}Furthermore, it would appear that decisions were
}made to approve actions that had already been taken
}by Mike Roberts. These decisions have resulted in
}a situation whereby Mike Roberts now has autonomous
}authority to bind ICANN without any further review
}from the ICANN Board, and without any comments
}from the Internet community.
}
}Finally, I object to the concept that meeting minutes
}are somehow sufficient to inform the Internet community
}about such important decisions. These meeting minutes
}certainly highlight my concerns!
}
}Since ICANN is clearly not willing to have open Board
}meetings, and since ICANN is clearly not willing to
}abide by the terms of the White Paper, the MoU, nor
}its own By-Laws, it is clearly up to the Commerce
}Department to address this situation.
}
}And if Commerce is unable or unwilling to provide this
}"adult supervision", then the Internet community will
}have little choice but to escalate these issues to the
}appropriate members of Congress and/or the Executive
}branch.
}
}Respectfully,
}
}Jay Fenello
}President, Iperdome, Inc.
}404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
}
}
}At 2/3/99, 06:06 PM, Gordon Cook wrote:
}>well well well isn't that just delightful. On January 14 I made the first
}>public report of the leasing out of the IANA employees via Mike roberts
}>cosy little actions last september and continuing down through the
}>explanation of the december 24th "deal" to extend the process beyond
}>january 1.
}>
}>THREE DAYS LATER the board has a special teleconference to catch up on
}>things and decides to grant Roberts ex post facto blessing for what he has
}>done....
}>
}>Gotta like that ICANN "open" style
}>
}>and it then takes almost 3 weeks to get minutes posted.... thats sim's
}>definition of timely or is it Roberts?
}>
}>
}>>FYI, the draft minutes of the Jan. 17 special meeting of the ICANN board
}>>are now posted at http://www.icann.org/minutes-17jan99.html.
}>>
}>>Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
}>>Senior Advisor
}>>ICANN
}>
}>***************************************************************************
}>The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur-
}>431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See
}>(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html
}>[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to
}>subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
}>***************************************************************************
}>
}
}
}
