Posted at the request of the author of the following, Bob Broxton, of
Richmond, Virginia.
=======================================================
OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT AS "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING
GROUP C OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, INTERNET
CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS"
As a member of Working Group C, I object to the release of this report
"Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting
Organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers"
(hereafter referred to as "Report of Working Group C") for the following
reasons:
1. The members of Working Group C have never given approval of this
Report. As such, this is not a "Report of Working Group C".
2. The members of Working Group C have not given approval to allow the
co-chairman of Working Group C to use his absolute discretion in
determining what goes in this particular report and then releasing this
report as a "Report of Working Group C". As such, this is not a "Report of
Working Group C".
3. The co-chairman of Working Group C has decided to release this report
as the "Report of Working Group C" over the known objections of some
members of Working Group C to releasing the report as the "Report of
Working Group C'.
4. Some members of Working Group C probably do not know this "Report of
Working Group C" exists. An extremely short period of time (approximately
7 days) was allowed to review and provide any suggestions regarding this
document.
5. The co-chairman has refused to change the name of the report to "The
Co-Chairman's Report on the Progress of Working Group C". This would
permit the material in the report to be released but allow the members of
Working Group C to approve and release a report from Working Group C
entitled "Report of Working Group C".
6. The issuance of this report, without the members of Working Group C
approving, either the language in the report or granting this authority to
the co-chairman, sets a bad precedent for future reports. Why have
members?
7. Public Comments have never been requested on this "Report of Working
Group C". Prior public comments were received on an Interim Report. The
"Report of Working Group C" being released now has new materials for which
public comments have never been received.
8. The release of any "Report of Working Group C" without first obtaining
public comments on a draft of the report is contrary to ICANN's stated
policy of " the development of consensus based policies (such as policies
concerning new names) in an open, transparent and bottom-up manner in which
interested individuals have an opportunity to participate and comment" (see
ICANN FAQ on new generic top level domains - posted September 13,1999).
9. This report was hurriedly prepared and little time allowed for review
because "Members of the Names Council" requested "WG-C file a report before
the NC's meeting in Cairo next week." Either Working Group C should be
allowed sufficient time to study the issues, explore all the options and
timely complete a report or the Names Council should disband the Working
Group. To require a Working Group to hastily prepare a report for the sake
of an upcoming meeting, with insufficient time for members to study,
provide comments and approve the report, does not establish a lot of faith
in the ICANN process.
Bob Broxton
Member of Working Group C
Richmond, VA
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Ellen Rony // http://www.domainhandbook.com
Co-author *=" ____ / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010
// \\ "Carpe canine"
The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
