[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [atlarge-discuss] anyone care to RALO?
Danny,
The opinion read on my behalf on ralo's can be found here:
www.able-towers.com/ralos.pdf
This was read out during the debate, and with all other opponents and
despite support from Amadeo it was completely ignored.
Not that I expected anything else, but at least we are part of the
procedure, the records.
This current panel has not had time to organize in a decent fashion let
alone lead the members in these matters.
Given time we hope to do better on other topics, once our house is in
order.
Regards
abel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> Sent: 27 June 2003 16:38
> To: abel@able-towers.com
> Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] anyone care to RALO?
>
>
> Abel,
>
> While all of us are appreciative of the services that both
> you and Sotiris
> provided on behalf of the At-Large at Montreal, the issue is not the
> contribution of individuals to the process but rather the
> lack of fortitude/leadership of
> the elected Panel of icannatlarge.
>
> The subject of RALOs has been under discussion for close to a
> year. We all
> have our opinions on this topic, but what is eminently clear is that:
>
> 1. Even if you support the concept of RALOs, the current
> proposal makes no
> provision for the inclusion of global organizations such as
> icannatlarge --
> this square peg does not fit into the five round holes
> recommended by the ALAC --
> as such the proposal is flawed and the Panel should have
> issued a public
> statement to that effect.
> 2. If you don't support the notion of RALOs, then assuredly
> a statement
> outlining the reasons for the organization's objections to
> the current plan should
> have been tendered.
>
> Silence on the part of the leadership of this group has
> resulted in the
> uncontested adoption of the ALAC recommendations by the ICANN
> Board. Every member
> of this Panel should have known that the topic was under
> discussion and that a
> decision would be reached at the Montreal session. To argue
> that there was
> simply not enough time to have the Panel as a whole agree on
> a statement is
> pure BS. If this Panel can't be relied upon to formally
> present the views of its
> membership in a timely fashion, then it is less than useless.
>
> Will the Panel of this organization act to file a
> reconsideration request?
> It certainly has enough time to get that accomplished... or
> will it again
> proceed to do nothing?
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de