[governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall

[Adam Peake]

>  >>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/17/05 11:07 PM >>>
>>I quite disagree with the above characterization to GAC Chair,
>>unless you have solid facts, it is not productive to assert these
>>subjective observations into our analysis.
>
>I have many solid facts, but there is no need to personalize the issue,
>I agree. Sharil is a very congenial and likable person. It is not my
>concern here to praise him or condemn him. I simply am laying out what
>happened.


Milton, with respect, you are doing nothing of the sort. You 
presenting a conspiracy theory based on when letters are dated and 
attempts to bury correspondence (in the folder marked ... 
correspondence! The fools, we found it 
<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/>  :-)

Why would ICANN put a letter from NTIA on its front page? General 
correspondence from the US govt should be treated the same as that of 
any other stakeholder and stuck in "correspondence" (as ICM 
registry's letter is filed).  GAC isn't any other stakeholder, it's 
an advisor, I have no problem with seeing that advice on the front 
page.  I would have been much more concerned had ICANN given NTIA 
special treatment.

ICANN was to hold a board meeting on a particular date and as that 
meeting approached letters came in on issues on the meeting's agenda. 
There's a reasonable explanation for everything.

And you say Sharil's known for being close to the US and claim he has 
used his office as GAC chair to do the US govt's bidding. Of course 
you've personalized it.

This is an extremely important issue -- potentially goes to the heart 
of our concerns over any single govt. having a "pre-eminent role" in 
Internet governance, and govt. generally respecting multi-stakeholder 
policy processes.  At the same time we are trying to be taken 
seriously in WSIS, want the opportunity to contribute in a meaningful 
way to the ongoing discussions about the WGIG report. Conjecture and 
personal attacks are not going to help us.

Looking forward to a draft statement on this, but please stick to facts.

Thanks,

Adam



>So let me clarify your position here, Izumi: are you saying that the US
>Commerce Department and Sharil decided to send letters to ICANN within
>one day of each other, asking for exactly the same thing, as a
>remarkable coincidence? Are you contending that they did not coordinate
>and communicate about this? Not a credible position, I'm afraid.
>
>>He might be aware of the US letter, but he was also siting
>>"several other governments" and I am sure it is not only USG who
>>are not happy with .xxx, those who are normally not politically in
>>line with USG. Syria, for example, was quite angry at WSIS/WGIG
>>meeting, for example,
>
>Of course, I have never denied that other governments were angry about
>.xxx. As I have pointed out several times, they were angry in Luxembourg
>and nothing happened. Once the US decided to act, things happened.
>Sharil wrote his letter and the staff used it and the Board complied and
>the applicant, seeing that it was all a done deal, went along with the
>delay.
>
>I'll address the idea of a CS statement in the next message.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance