RE: [council] ICANN Board Resolutions - 28-June-2005

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bret:

Point of clarification, I believe you would like to hear from someone from
the Board in Luxemburg, not Mar del Plata :-)

I share your concern that the ALAC and Internet Community at large deserving
to have a more detailed explanation regarding the Board's decisions. I would
hope that you and others that feel the same way consider making this point
known during the various public forums. I would also like to suggest that
the ALAC, similar to other ICANN constituencies, consider inviting the full
Board to your meeting during a designated time. Currently I believe the
Board is scheduled to meet with the IPC, Business and ISPs in a cross
constituency meeting Monday morning, followed by a lunch meeting with the
registries, followed by an afternoon meeting with the registrars on Monday.
These sessions on average last approximately one hour. I would recommend the
ALAC interfacing with Diane Schroeder since she coordinates many of the
Board's movements during these meetings.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bret Fausett
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:29 PM
To: michael@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; apisan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Board Resolutions - 28-June-2005


Thank you for this update, Michael. In the ALAC, we have concerns about
the lack of transparency around the .NET decision. Specifically, the
view from the outside is that the public comments, the ALAC submission,
and the GNSO submission were not given due consideration by the Board.
In fact, from the outside, it is not clear that these contributions were
given *any* consideration by the Board.

In Mar del Plata, I would like to hear someone from the Board make a
presentation that responds to the significant concerns voiced by the
public, the ALAC and the GNSO about the award.

This is not to say that Verisign was the wrong choice, only that we
deserve an explanation as to why Verisign was the right choice in light
of the contributions ICANN received from the community.

>During the call I also requested an update on the .NET contract
>negotiations. As you may be aware this contract was recently executed by
>VeriSign and ICANN and will go into effect July 1, 2005 (tomorrow).
>