ICANN Board action on Reconsideration
Date: Saturday January 26 2002, @04:58AM
Topic: Board of Directors

ehasbrouck writes "I was notified by e-mail (see below) that the full Board had upheld the Reconsideration Commitee's recommendation that no action be taken on my reconsideration request re: ".aero". In addition, the ICANN web site shows that the Board voted on Reconsideration Requests 01-4 and 01-6. No mechanism was provided for poublic monitoring of the telephone "meeting". [Minutes are now posted -mf]

FWIW, the clause of the bylaws requiring that ICANN "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner" would appear to require that telephone meetings be made accessible (e.g. by Internet audio streaming or call-in telephone monitoring) if that is feasible. So these actions, like others at closed telephone "meetings", are arguably invalid."

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:19:19 -0800
From: Louis Touton
To: edward@hasbrouck.org
Subject: Board action on Reconsideration Committee Recommendation 01-7

Dear Mr. Hasbrouck,

On 21 January 2002, the ICANN Board adopted the following resolution concerning your request fro reconsideration:

Resolved [02.07] that the Reconsideration Committee's Recommendation RC 01-7 is adopted for the reasons stated in that recommendation.

---

Best regards,

Louis Touton

------- End of forwarded message -------

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
ICANN Board action on Reconsideration | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 2 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Threshold:
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re: ICANN Board action on Reconsideration
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Saturday January 26 2002, @09:18AM (#4742)
User #2810 Info
They're not arguably invalid, they are by definition invalid. -g
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.




  • This article comes from ICANNWatch
    http://www.icannwatch.org/

    The URL for this story is:
    http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/26/085827