[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Comment-Ip] Re: [IFWP] ICANN and WIPO in Berlin
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: [Comment-Ip] Re: [IFWP] ICANN and WIPO in Berlin
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 16:01:24 +0100
- CC: ICANN <email@example.com>, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, Justice <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "james.tierney" <email@example.com>
- Organization: INEG. Inc.
- References: <199905061550.IAA28717@sparrow.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Bret and all,
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> The latest agenda items for the Berlin ICANN meeting
> (http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html) suggest that "[t]he
> ICANN Board of Directors will meet to discuss and vote on any pending
> resolutions with regard to...WIPO Final Report, including annexes." ICANN
> has invited public comment on the WIPO report
> (http://www.icann.org/wipo/wipo.htm) and has stated that "[c]omments
> received by midnight, U.S. West Coast time, May 21, will be considered
> by the ICANN Board of Directors in advance of any action on these matters
> at the May 27 ICANN Board meeting in Berlin."
Of course that May 27th ICANN Interim Board meeting is closed, is
that not correct? And as such is in direct violation of the White Paper
as well as the ICANN's own Bylaws.
> Of course, "any action" on WIPO could include accepting and implementing
> the report's recommendations, but it could also include referring the
> report to the DNSO. I would respectfully suggest that the ICANN Board
> take the latter approach.
The "Latter" approach in this case would be invalid as the DNSO
constituencies are not yet approved and would not allow for enough time
for those members of those constituencies adequate review time in
> Not only will this approach ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that
> the community finds consensus on what has been a controversial document,
> but it could provide the additional time necessary to allow the election
> of the nine at-large board members and the election of board members from
> the three Supporting Organizations.
This approach would NOT allow "To the greatest extent possible" for
the stakeholder community to find consensus unless the At-Large members
have a chance to VOTE by majority as to whether in part of in full the
WIPO recommendations should be adopted.
> The domain name issues raised by the
> WIPO Report are some of the most difficult issues facing ICANN, and they
> should be resolved within the SO structure and by the permanent board.
WRONG! They should be resolved by the At-Large stakeholder community
by majority VOTE.
> -- Bret Fausett
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208