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

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

Hello Joanna:

The following message was sent to Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and Representative Pombo.

Regards,


Micheal Sherrill

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Micheal Sherrill" <micheal@beethoven.com>
Reply-To: <micheal@beethoven.com>
Date:  Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:06:34 -0400

Hello Senator Boxer:

Please help investigate and stop the out-of-control management of the Internet by ICANN executives.  It is approaching chaos, if not scandal.  Please review the following email by a member of our organization, ICANNatlarge [which was formed, in part, to track and prevent such outrageous occurrences that have become far too prevalent of late] to Stuart Lynn, President and CEO of ICANN.  Our member, Joanna Lane, has succinctly, and directly, asked Mr. Lynn for an explanation to one of his questionable actions.  If he follows his usual pattern he will not reply.  As quoted from the Internet home page of ICANN [It is the objective of ICANN to operate as an open, transparent, and consensus-based body that is broadly representative of the diverse stakeholder communities of the global Internet.]  Tragically, neither Mr. Lynn nor any of his staff obey any of this objective.  ICANN is not open, it is not transparent, nor is it anywhere close to being consensus-based.  It is currently!
 b!
!
eing sued by one of the ICANN board of directors for not following this objective.  We need your intervention to help us stop the lunacy of the management of ICANN.

If you wish there is much more information in the archived forum http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/  

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