[ICANN-EU] Re: [icann-candidates] ICANNER Squatters

[Rédaction <telepresse@hotpop.com>]

Dear Mr. Auerbach,
I thank you for this very clear response from a Director elect. Mr. Andy
Muller Maguhn has recently broadcasted here his suspicions concerning
a kernel of Directors, what Mrs. Esther Dyson seemingly confirmed.
Apparently that kernel is clearly identified now.

1. Do you fear this may lead into a crisis between the Internet Community
     at large and the ICANN?

It seems that you will not be allowed to seat at the next Board Meeting.

2. can you confirm this?

3. do you expect decisions of importance to be taken during that meeting?
     -  concerning the change of US administration  (if any)
     -  the gTLDs
     -  moves towards the termination of the @large experience

Mr. Jamie Love has also been an obvious a victim of the ICANN squattering
lobby. You use very strong legal words against the ICANN. Both of you
are lawyers.

4. do you think there is matter for legal actions against the ICANN decisions?
     If yes would you consider an @large Members complaint according to the
     internal ICANN procedures of any use? Or would favor a legal action?

Several voices in the European industry said the TLD application fee was
illegal. Now some voices say that $ 50.000 in a legal action to stop the TLD
application procedure and to break some ICANN recent decisions would be
well invested money for a lot of press. This might be very hurting to ICANN.

5. would you approve such moves or would you propose some arbitration
    or appeasement solutions? Would the departure of the 4 cybersquatters
    a prerequisite?

These questions are in continuation to Mr. Auerbach's response but
they are also proposed to all the Members of these MLs
Faithfully yours.
Charles Mollon




At 21:54 29/10/00, you wrote:

> > I would be interested in knowing your evalutation of the ICANN annoucement
> > of 4 interim Members of the initial BoD  to stay 4 years instead of a few
> > months and to represent you.
>
>Personally I feel that it is a breach of faith.
>
>Not that this is anything surprising or new - ICANN has from the outset
>repeatedly broken its bond of trust with the Internet community.  Just
>look at how ICANN has from its very first meeting flagrantly tossed aside
>its obligations to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
>transparent manner".  Just look at how ICANN deferred even the creation of
>an at large membership.  And why did ICANN fill only a portion of the
>at-large seats?
>
>By permitting this boardsquatting ICANN has once again slapped the
>Internet community in the face.
>
>                 --karl--