Re: [IFWP] Re: yesterday's phone call (was: open and closed

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kerry and all,

Kerry Miller wrote:

> Esther wrote,
> > The GAC sets its own agenda, and we are not responsible for what it
> > considers....or advises.
> >
>
>   I really hope the Board invests in a dictionary. Ad-vise is in ad-
> dition to a vis-ion. An ad-vis-or is given something to look at, and
> _adds its views_. It does not set its own agenda, and the ICANN
> board had damn well better prove to be responsible for what the
> GAC considers or it will lose its license.

  Currently or thus far the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board has already
provided enough errant behavior to justify the loss of their license.
At some point in time, there is likely to be a test case filed along
these
lines...

> Frankly, I was going to
> suggest you  re-view (even re-vise) the minutes of the 8/12 meeting
> before they were posted, but it sounds as if its too late for that.
>
> In any case, from your selective response, I infer that the answers
> to the antecedent questions
>
> > Why then has the issue been put on the Governmental Advisory
> > Committee agenda? Does the GAC originate "advice" for the
> > BoD?  Is there a record of the BoD asking the GAC for this
> > advice, against the recommendations of "staff"?
>
> are "I am not aware of any reason," "Yes" and "No." Are those
> correct? Will it then be correct to infer that the Board will have no
> reason  -- unless the GAC gives it one, extemporaneously -- to
> consider a GAC report on the cited points at the meetings of 8/25-
> 26?  If, on the other hand, the Board does consider it, will that
> report be posted according to Art III, Sec 3(b), "With respect to any
> policies that are being considered for adoption that substantially
> affect the operation of the Internet or third parties..., the Board
> will... provide public notice on the Web Site explaining what
> policies are being considered for adoption *and why*..."?

  With respect to Art III, Sec 3(b), the current  BoD has already failed
to
comply with this article in two other occasions, as we all well know
and is fully documented.  My guess is that it it s flip of a coin, as to
whether
they shall again in this instance...

  This missive behavior on the part of the BOD, due to improper oversight

of the NTIA and the fact that no membership is in place, which was
supposed to be a top priority of the Bod, should be, and likely will be
of
some interest and importance to the California State Attorney's office..

>
>
> kerry

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208