Re: [ga] Re: [Members] ICANN Carthage meetings

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

  Why is it that the ICANNATLARGE.ORG has yet to submit to the
comment period for TLD evaluation that ICANN had ongoing?  Could
it be that the ICANNATLARGE.ORG is yet to be organized adequately
or have held a legitimate election?  Or is it perhaps because the
ICANNATLARGE.ORG members cannot agree upon a policy and
process for the expansion or introduction of TLD's that it's members
can get on board with or have voted upon in agreement with?  Or both?
Please advise...

  ALthough the ALAC is itself not a legitimate representative organization
of stakeholders/users, it is showing that it can raise funds according
to your comments below, if accurate..  Lack of fund raising
ability is a trait that the ICANNATLARGE.ORG has been and
continues to be, straddled with...

Richard Henderson wrote:

> I would appreciate, specifically, detailed update info on the state of play
> of Sebastien Bachollet's NewTLDs Evaluation Process, the role of the TEAC
> and why it is not referenced, the process by which the imminent report has
> been generated, and also an explanation of why this report (budget $350000?)
> was not put out to tender first? Who solicited Sebastien? Where is the
> agenda? Given Sebastien's stated support for user participation in the past,
> I hope he will recognise that the At Large has a significant input to offer
> to the Evaluation of the previous new TLDs and the criteria for selecting
> more. I have scores of questions and statements to make, and I'm sure other
> members have plenty to add as well. Furthermore, Joop, I'd appreciate any
> info you can get on the whereabouts of the Registry Evaluation Reports,
> mandated under Appendix U of their ICANN-Registry Agreements, which were due
> for publication 18 months ago. A year ago, Stuart Lynn said ICANN staff had
> been too busy to post them on the website, and that this was now being dealt
> with. But the Reports have never been published. The NTEPPTF stated in its
> report (which the Board accepted and asked to be implemented) that these
> Registry Evaluation Reports were data central to the Evaluation Process, and
> that they should be made available to all constituencies. ICANN seems
> incredibly unprofessional about this. If you see Paul Twomey, you might
> remind him I wrote to him about this and other matters in May of this year,
> and he's never acknowledged my mail. Ask him how "responsive" he thinks this
> is? And also ask Dan Halloran, when you see him, when he's going to
> acknowledge my mail of 500+ days ago, raising those concerns about the
> sunrise and landrush launches of .info and .biz which the NTEPPTF also
> identified as areas of concern which needed to be addressed. Also, I note
> that Hal Lubsen will be in Carthage, and I'd be interested to know from Hal,
> precisely how he justifies the Lorenz domain sale - he'll know what I mean -
> DomainBank got $15000 from that, breaking the Afilias rules in the process
> (even though ol' Hal was CEO of Afilias at the time).
>
> Thanks in anticipation, Joop!
>
> Richard H
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <members@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 1:26 AM
> Subject: [Members] ICANN Carthage meetings
>
> > The coming ICANN meeting ... anything related to the meeting...
> > All constructive suggestions are welcome.
> >
> > -joop-

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801