ICANNWatch | ICANNfocus Article on ASO MoU Compares Wrong Documents

ICANNfocus Article on ASO MoU Compares Wrong Documents
posted by Mueller on Thursday October 28 2004, @07:05PM

Paul Wilson writes "Before anyone else jumps on this particular bandwagon:

http://thecre.com/icann/20041025_mou.htm

please understand that ICANNfocus has reached its conclusions by comparing the wrong documents. The new ASO MoU is available at:

http://www.nro.net
http://www.aso.icann.org

Comment and criticism are welcome as always, but please make sure you are critiquing the right document!

Paul Wilson, Chair, Number Resource Organization"

< Gatwick goings-on | Pending TLD applications, forever? >

ICANNWatch Login

[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

ICANNfocus Article on ASO MoU Compares Wrong Documents | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 1 comments | Search Discussion

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

ICANNfocus Article on ASO MoU Compares Wrong Docum
by ICANNfocus.org on Monday November 01 2004, @02:06PM (#14409)
User #3977 Info

In immediate response to Mr. WIlson's letter to ICANNfocus, we sent the following response:

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Thank you very much for your response to our Spotlight article. I would note that ICANN prominently announced the new ICANN-ASO MOU on their website but did not provide a link to the actual document. Thus, we searched the ICANN website for the document and found two ICANN-ASO MOUs, a March 2004 that looked final, i.e. not marked draft, and another undated MOU. In that we believed that ICANN would post the agreement when they issued their press release (or at least soon after the announcement of the signing) we reasonably concluded that the agreement with the URL of http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html was the current document discussed in ICANN's press release. Our conclusion was strengthened by the fact that our research showed that the March 2004 verison of the document was actually not final and subject to potential change following public comment.

In the interest of fairness, we would like to post your response in our Spotlight box, giving it the same prominence as the original article. The posting would take place this Monday evening which is when we regularly update the website.

Please let me know if we have permission to publish, complete and unedited, your response to our article.

Sincerely,
ICANNfocus.org

[It should be noted the Mr. Wilson chose to not respond to ICANNfocus' request to place his letter on our site. However, since he has publicly made similar points on this site, we have posted his letter on ICANNfocus.org. ICANNfocus continues to believe that ICANN should contemporaneously provide links to agreements and other documents they publicize and discuss on their website or explain why they are not making such documents available to the public.]

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml.