Resolution to extend term of board passes without objection?

["Nick Lordi" <nlj@research.telcordia.com>]

There were 12 comments posted regarding ICANN's resolution on
extending the term of the initial directors by an additional year.
<http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-initial-director-term/maillist.html>
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 
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive/icann-public-meeting-comments-082599.html>

However, according to the Aug 26th board meeting notes posted at:
 <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive/scribe-board-082699.html>
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?


Nick Lordi
Telcordia Technologies
nlordi@telcordia.com