[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Resolution to extend term of board passes without objection?
There were 12 comments posted regarding ICANN's resolution on
extending the term of the initial directors by an additional year.
All 12 comments were against passage of the resolution, and several in
fact raised serious concerns which warranted further discussion.
Additional comments against this resolution were also posted to the Aug 25th
"real-time" meeting comments
However, according to the Aug 26th board meeting notes posted at:
the resolution to extend the term of the board passed "without opposition".
Without opposition? All of the posted comments reflected opposition.
Could the board please respond to the posted comments, specifically disclosing
what discussion took place by the board regarding this resolution?
ICANN has stated on several occasions, including Congressional testimony
<http://www.icann.org/dyson-testimony-22july99.htm> and its status report to
the Department of Commerce, <http://www.icann.org/statusreport-15june99.htm>
that it is a "consensus organization" reflecting "bottom-up governance" and
that these principles "are the standards which the ICANN Initial Board
has used to guide its policy development efforts".
How can ICANN consider itself such an organization when it
appears that the comments were not even read, let alone reviewed by the board?