TO: ICANN Reconsideration Committee
13 March 2001
Rebuttal to IATA Comments filed 13 March 2001 in response to our "Point of Order" filed with the Committee on 09 March 2001.
Dear Sir or Madam:
As a threshold matter, USTAR and the seven other travel agency associations' "Point of Order" was not an attempt to re-open debate on the substance of our original comments filed on 23 February 2001 with the ICANN Reconsideration Committee. Our choice not to address IATA's 09 March 2001 rebuttal to our comments should not be taken as any indication on our part to concede any of IATA's allegations regarding the merits of its application to ICANN since these items have been previously debated and cited.
Our sole purpose was to raise the issue that IATA had falsely portrayed our participation, and the participation of all other organizations at the "IATA Dot-Travel Summit" on 21 February 2001 in Geneva, as an indication of support or affirmation of the pending IATA application at ICANN and the pending appeal filed regarding same.
Not one organization attending this meeting voiced any indication of support for the existing IATA application to ICANN. Not one organization attending this meeting voiced any indication of support for IATA's appeal to the ICANN Reconsideration Committee.
All participants convened in Geneva to listen to IATA's presentation of suggested changes to its application, new plans for the governance of dot-travel, and proposed administrative/operational aspects of a prospective joint industry effort to manage dot-travel. Our participation was solely to consider a ** new ** series of proposals from IATA, ** not ** to support or consider the application ** already ** filed with ICANN.
As proof of IATA's intent to revise its
application, we attach a copy [not included here] of a new proposal
of options for the governance of dot-travel transmitted by IATA
As additional proof that participants' conclusions regarding dot-travel were not only unsettled, but required additional work, we attach a copy [also not included here] of an IATA report of the "working group" which clearly indicates that further steps are necessary to reach consensus for a variety of aspects of dot-travel.
IATA has completely misrepresented the basis of participation of attendees at the Summit and on the resulting Working Group. Under no circumstances did any of the participants agree to give IATA support for its existing application or appeal of dot-travel at ICANN.
Our sole function and participation was to consider new options for dot-travel, evaluate a need for same, and determine how dot-travel may prospectively be acceptable in the future. Any other characterization of our participation in IATA's activities is utterly false.
Thank you for taking the time to review this clarification of our "point of order".
Bruce Bishins, CTC
on behalf of the original associations filing comments on 23 February 2001.
Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.
(c) 2001 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.