RE: [registrars] Fwd: Press Release of 26/03/2004, United Nations ICT Task Force

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

I hear you. But I concur with Jean-Michel. That's why Go Daddy tried,
perhaps ineffectively, to hammer home the fact that Condition C was not met
but was simply dismissed by the negotiators without process.

It did bother me that virtually no discussion took place in the public board
meeting regarding that, or any other issue raised. Especially since two of
the Board Members are elected by the GNSO who overwhelmingly opposed the WLS
and whose issues were part of why the six conditions were made. Perhaps the
law suit had everyone tight lipped.

In any event, this is something the GNSO and its constituencies should keep
in mind as those Board seats come up again.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jean-Michel
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:28 PM
To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
Cc: elliot noss; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] Fwd: Press Release of 26/03/2004, United Nations
ICT Task Force

Eric,

Okay I will jump in that discussion cause I had some BoD members who 
explained to me their vote:

First of all let remind the facts:
WLS were already decided 2 years ago (I don't remenber which meeting as 
I was away of ICANN matters at that time) when the Board asked Verisign 
to comply with 6 conditions.

So the Roma 's vote was not about WLS itself but about if the 6 
conditions were reached and in that case WLS can fly its way.

This is just facts and have nothing to do with my opinion about WLS 
being bad or good.

Regards,
Jean-Michel


Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:

>Elliot,
>
>Let me know when you get the first BoD member to explain his or her vote.
>
>Eric
>
>  
>