Michael Sondow wrote:
> Diane Cabell a �crit:
>
> > All three of these statements are incorrect.
> > Again, I call attention to the reports submitted to ICANN in Singapore,
> > and caution against drawing incorrect conclusions from the abbreviated
> > notes of the teleconference call.
>
> Singapore was two months ago. The March 18th report is the current
> one.
No, sir. I'm afraid you are still confusing subject headers with substantive
recommendations and telephone conversations with official reports. We should
add a disclaimer on the minutes to make that more clear.
The March 18th meeting notes are not an official MAC report. They are Molly's
summaries of a MAC telephone discussion. She has used numbered one-sentence
headers to represent the detailed points of the Singapore recommendations.
Those headers themselves do not represent a new or different set of
recommendations. Some of topics are issues on which the MAC did *not* reach
consensus in Singapore, and Mr. Conrades was revisiting them to see if any
positions had changed that might now result in a consensus.
We have always listened closely to your comments but I believe that on this
point you are wasting your very valuable contributions on an issue that doesn't
exist.
> The only official statements are those that appear on the ICANN
> website, not those on the Berkman site. The Berkman site is for the
> in-group; the ICANN site is what is being read around the world.
The Berkman RCS study is the "official" study group that performed the research
for the MAC reports. It is the very first link on the MAC page at icann.org
The MAC Singapore Report is credited to both as is proper since it was a joint
effort. Many of the ICANN links are to background materials at the Berkman
site. Neither one is inaccessible to the public and both have been broadly
referenced on the ICANN website and the membership list.
Diane Cabell
MAC
