Don't Rely on ICANN's 'Correspondence' Section
Date: Wednesday February 01 2006, @05:50AM
Topic: ICANN Staff and Structure

ICANN. Open and transparent. Not.

When ICANN wants to publicize a letter that supports its views, that letter gets online in ICANN's correspondence section. Some other things never get on there or get on verrry slooowly, if at all.

For example, anyone seen any sign on the ICANN site of this letter from the ITU regarding registering within the ".int" domain (Jan. 16, 2006)?

Nope.

More info on the ITU's actual propsed rules, in document "E.910".

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Don't Rely on ICANN's 'Correspondence' Section | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 1 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.
Tell me about it
by Mueller ({mueller} {at} {syr.edu}) on Sunday February 05 2006, @02:33PM (#16599)
User #2901 Info | http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
I've learned via sources that I can't divulge yet that my suspicions about the timing of the GAC and US Commerce Department letters regarding the .xxx domain were correct. The GAC Letter was advertised on the ICANN front page and made to appear as if it came first, and the DoC letter not advertised and placed in a way to appear as if it followed the GAC letter. And of course, when the Internet Governance Project prepared a carefully reasoned public petition advising ICANN's Board not to cave on the .xxx issue, and received hundreds of signatures and sent them to Twomey, Cerf, DoC and the Board, it never appeared on the correspondence section of the ICANN web site.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]




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

The URL for this story is:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/01/151205