Re: [atlarge-discuss] Whois the .org consultant?

["Micheal Sherrill" <micheal@beethoven.com>]

Mr. Lynn:

I am writing my congresspersons regarding this issue even as you are reading this email.  California constituents will not abide by such affront of defined jurisdiction.  You are stretching the boundary of your delineated authority and taking advantage of what little time you have left to your office.  You will be held accountable.

Regards,


Micheal Sherrill


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
Date:  Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:33:46 -0400

Dear Stuart,
On the very same day that you write to Nancy Victory,
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/icann-to-doc-19jul02.htm responding to
US Department of Commerce directive to you to take better account of the
concerns of the various supporting organizations and advisory committees,
you also had the gall to seek direct authorization from a 6 person,
self-appointed, non-elected Committee that has all the powers of the full
Board, but none of its checks and balances - for explicit permission to
disburse more than a third of the .org application fees, some $125,000, to
an independent consultant, the purpose of which is to "partly examine .org
applications". All that cash and for only half the job?

The $125,000 this self-nominated, self-appointed, self-serving committee
authorized you to spend were raised in fact from the future prospective
unsuccessful applicants of .org. Were these impacted parties consulted
before the decision was made to spend their money on this nameless, faceless
consultant?
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-19jul02.htm

And more important, who is "the consultant" exactly? Would it be correct to
assume Joe Sims is connected in some way to this disbursement? What possible
reason can there be to keep details of this engagement secret. Was the
reason sufficiently compelling to ignore ICANN's founding principles of
openness and transparency?
How is such behavior by you and your Staff consistent with a bottom up
policy development process? Consistent with the DoC directive? Why is this
information not on the front page of the ICANN website, as New and
Noteworthy?

I think you owe the community an explanation, don't you?

Sincerely,
Joanna





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de