Posted at the request of the author of the following, Bob Broxton, of
Richmond, Virginia.
=======================================================
OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT AS "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING
GROUP C OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, INTERNET
CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS"
As a member of Working Group C, I object to the release of this report
"Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting
Organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers"
(hereafter referred to as "Report of Working Group C")� for the following
reasons:
1.�� The� members of Working Group C have never given approval of this
Report.� As such, this is not a "Report of Working Group C".
2.�� The members of Working Group C have not given approval to allow the
co-chairman of Working Group C to use his absolute discretion in
determining what goes in this particular report and then releasing this
report as a "Report of Working Group C".� As such, this is not a "Report of
Working Group C".
3.� The co-chairman of Working Group C has decided to release this report
as the "Report of Working Group C" over the known� objections of some
members of Working Group C to releasing the report as the "Report of
Working Group C'.
4.�� Some members of� Working Group C probably do not know this "Report of
Working Group C" exists.� An extremely short period of time (approximately
7 days) was allowed to review and provide any suggestions regarding this
document.
5.�� The co-chairman has refused to change the name of the report to "The
Co-Chairman's Report on the Progress of Working Group C".� This would
permit the material in the report to be released but allow the members of
Working Group C� to approve and release a report from Working Group C
entitled "Report of Working Group C".
6.�� The issuance of this report, without the members of Working Group C
approving, either the language in the report or granting this authority to
the co-chairman, sets a bad precedent for future reports.� Why have
members?
7.�� Public Comments have never been requested on this "Report of Working
Group C".� Prior public comments were received on an Interim Report.� The
"Report of Working Group C"� being released now has new materials for which
public comments have never been received.
8.�� The release of any "Report of Working Group C" without first obtaining
public comments on a draft of the report is contrary to ICANN's stated
policy of " the development of consensus based policies (such as policies
concerning new names) in an open, transparent and bottom-up manner in which
interested individuals have an opportunity to participate and comment" (see
ICANN FAQ on new generic top level domains - posted September 13,1999).
9.� This report was hurriedly prepared and little time allowed for review
because "Members of the Names Council" requested "WG-C file a report before
the NC's meeting in Cairo next week."�� Either Working Group C should be
allowed sufficient time to study the issues, explore all the options and
timely complete a report or the Names Council should disband the Working
Group.� To require a Working Group to hastily prepare a report for the sake
of an upcoming meeting, with insufficient time for members to study,
provide comments and approve the report, does not establish a lot of faith
in the ICANN process.
�
Bob Broxton
Member of Working Group C
Richmond, VA
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Ellen Rony // http://www.domainhandbook.com
Co-author *=" ____ / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010
// \\ "Carpe canine"
The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
