Re: [ga] Response to: expiration of TLD sponsorship agreements comment
- To: Edward Hasbrouck <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] Response to: expiration of TLD sponsorship agreements comment
- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: "Craig.Schwartz" <Craig.Schwartz@xxxxxxxxx>, registry-failure-report@xxxxxxxxx
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=SV4Thg5wCc2CWvRsBSbZPAjp8Qjwe+3rWBNTL1OYqmDhkgjo+G/Ts5ir1gRlSOPbsOMhwMZU4pakZ2+GMTbe/ar9UeLxDBi6i1MVQkvgXH0aQatnDcFlwitl5VMKoCtl2CyJKwoc7zT3ytQUErZPLoL1JQeOii3q7W6QAIlmyPk=;
- In-reply-to: <4680D6FB.19202.AFD208@edward.hasbrouck.org>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For what it's worth:
here is some info on the .museum extension:
some further correspondence on .coop:
I saw "Discussion of status of renewal agreements for
the .AERO, .COOP and .MUSEUM" listed as a topic for
discussion at the 18 October 2006 Board meeting, but
minutes do not reflect that discussion on the issue
Good luck in your quest for answers.
--- Edward Hasbrouck <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2007 at 9:58, "Craig.Schwartz"
> <Craig.Schwartz@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > all three sTLDs agreements are current through
> extensions that have
> > been granted
> I can find no publicly-disclosed record of any such
> "grant". In
> accordance with ICANN's transparency Bylaw, I
> request that you tell us:
> (1) The URL of the minutes and the reference number
> of the resolution of
> the Board of Directors approving each of these
> purported amendments.
> (2) The URL at which each of these proposed
> amendments was posted for
> public comment prior to the Board's consideration of
> each proposal.
> (3) The manner in which a public forum was prooved
> for public comment on
> each of these proposed amendments.
> (4) All records of ICANN's consideration of these
> Any action by ICANN to "grant" such amendments or
> extensions was not
> decided in accrodance with ICANN's priocedural
> Bylaws, particularly those
> providing for transparency as a necessary
> precondition for public
> participation. Any such purported action was null
> and void, and should be
> reconsidered "de novo" through a properly
> transparent and procedurally
> correct process, including due notice and
> opportunity for public comment.
> I stand by my original comment that there is not any
> *valid* current
> contractual agreement between ICANN and the former
> sponsor of .AERO.
> Edward Hasbrouck
> Edward Hasbrouck
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.