Kerry and all,
It is our [INEGroup's} opinion as we have already voted upon and in
respect to the current ICANN (Initial?) Interim boards self determined
"Extension", as invalid. This decision should be made by the membership
in accordance with the terms of the White Paper. The compliance
with the White Paper has not been done by this current ICANN (Initial?)
Interim Board, hence I must agree with Prof. Froomkins comment
to which you contribute this post (See below)... As such, we [INEGroup]
as a whole, find that the current ICANN (Initial?) Interim board has not
the trust of the broad internet community or it's stakeholders, nor any
claim of any consensus on any, thus far declared "Resolution", of which
several have been taken, are currently legitimately valid, in terms of
reality...
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Nick Lordi wrote,
> > A new new resolution should be drafted, posted, given a reasonable
> > comment period, and clearly address why it is necessary.
> > Such a new resolution could be drafted along the lines of what
> > Michael Froomkin suggested in his previously posted comments [...]
> > ICANN needs to establish trust, and such an act would go a
> > long way in establishing trust.
> >
>
> Indeed, it should be seen as a vote of no-confidence, and as such
> provides an ideal opportunity for the Interim Board to dip their toes
> in open, Internet-style communication.
>
> An emergency *virtual* meeting of the board could be convened,
> wherein comments can not only be addressed to, but answered by,
> them. At the end of the day, those who succeed in achieving the
> quality and quantity of responses expected by the Interrnet
> community could be considered as having gained a mandate for an
> additional year.
>
> kerry
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
