-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I would concur with this approach.
Gene Marsh
Diebold Incorporated / anycastNET Incorporated
- -----Original Message-----
From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 11:53 AM
To: ICANN
Cc: IFWP; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IFWP] ICANN and WIPO in Berlin
The latest agenda items for the Berlin ICANN meeting
(http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html) suggest that "[t]he
ICANN Board of Directors will meet to discuss and vote on any pending
resolutions with regard to...WIPO Final Report, including annexes."
ICANN
has invited public comment on the WIPO report
(http://www.icann.org/wipo/wipo.htm) and has stated that "[c]omments
received by midnight, U.S. West Coast time, May 21, will be
considered
by the ICANN Board of Directors in advance of any action on these
matters
at the May 27 ICANN Board meeting in Berlin."
Of course, "any action" on WIPO could include accepting and
implementing
the report's recommendations, but it could also include referring the
report to the DNSO. I would respectfully suggest that the ICANN Board
take the latter approach.
Not only will this approach ensure, to the greatest extent possible,
that
the community finds consensus on what has been a controversial
document,
but it could provide the additional time necessary to allow the
election
of the nine at-large board members and the election of board members
from
the three Supporting Organizations. The domain name issues raised by
the
WIPO Report are some of the most difficult issues facing ICANN, and
they
should be resolved within the SO structure and by the permanent board.
-- Bret Fausett
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBNzHGMZHtPfG6xLnPEQKY9QCglwsqT6UJAeeCas5RxxkQbF2mA4UAnjE7
t/0L/S903dWBAVD3B6u/S1Qr
=wkZb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
