[governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce Department/GAC chair intervention

[McTim]

I'm with Ray.

--
McTim

On 8/19/05, Ray Plzak <plzak at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Adam.
> 
> Ray
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 8:12 AM
> > To: Milton Mueller; avri at acm.org
> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> > Subject: Re: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
> > Department/GAC chair intervention
> >
> > Milton, don't see why GAC's request was against
> > any defined procedure. But perhaps I
> > misunderstand the bylaws. Please explain.
> >
> > It's irritating, it indicates problems with the
> > process, but where does it say GAC can't make a
> > request of this kind? It wasn't totally
> > unexpected, still a surprise, but as some
> > governments in Luxembourg made strong concerns
> > known, more (those who obviously hadn't followed
> > any of the ICANN process) made very strong
> > complaints during WGIG discussion, it wasn't out
> > of the blue.
> >
> > When was the agenda of the August 16 board
> > meeting announced? i.e. when would governments
> > have known that a board decision on xxx was
> > imminent? Veni, can you tell us.
> >
> > I don't see GAC and NTIA acting in concert. US
> > may have been one govt to ask GAC to ask for a
> > delay, but there are very strong indications they
> > were not the only ones.
> >
> > For the rest, all been said by Izumi, Ian, Bill, Veni, Ewan...
> >
> > This is a very important issue. But at the moment
> > I'd rather wait and see what happens between now
> > and September 15 and at the meeting on September
> > 15 than try to produce any hard hitting
> > statement. We don't know enough.
> >
> > I wouldn't be unhappy to see a statement warning
> > ICANN of our concerns, set things up for a
> > statement should our fears be realized. And
> > criticizing NTIA for what I think was unfair an
> > inappropriate pressure, particularly when quoting
> > a bunch of from letters from one of the
> > administration's basest political lobbies.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Adam
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050819/c6d4960b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance