[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ifwp] January 17th ICANN Teleconference
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:38:41 -0500
- From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
- Subject: Re: [ifwp] January 17th ICANN Teleconference
At 1/26/99, 12:20 PM, Michael Sondow wrote:
>
>Esther Dyson, George Conrades, Mike Roberts, and the ICANN Board-
>
>The announcement on the ICANN website (reproduced below)
>indicates that this teleconference was of such importance to the
>Internet that, since it was apparently not public or recorded,
>the ICANN Interim Board is morally obligated to announce publicly
>its results and conclusions.
>
>The ICIIU calls on you, the ICANN Interim Board members, to
>supply a brief statement on the decisions you made on each of
>the conference's topics as listed below, so that the Internet
>community may know what you are doing, and what you are planning
>to do, to affect its future.
Hello Michael,
You have highlighted an apparent deviation
from the stated rules and procedures outlined
in the ICANN by-laws. More comments below . . .
<http://www.icann.org/calendar.html>
>..................................................................
>January 17, 1999 - Special Meeting
>
>The Initial Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for
>Assigned Names and Numbers will conduct a special meeting via
>telephone on January 17, 1999, at 9:00 am U.S. East Coast time
>for the following purposes:
>
>-Discussion of the transition of authority for IANA functions
>to ICANN, ratification of necessary agreements with the
>University of Southern California, and authorization of
>proposals, negotiation, and agreements with the United States
>Department of Commerce regarding ICANN assumption of the IANA
>function.
To discuss this?
According to the documentation I've attached below,
this transfer appeared to have occurred before the
open ICANN meeting in Boston on November 14th.
Then, in a conference call between ORSC and the
Commerce Department, Becky Burr said that Mike Robert
had mis-spoke. That no transfer had occurred.
Then, on January 4, 1999, NIST reported in a
Commerce Business Daily listing that the transfer
occurred on December 24th, 1998.
Confused yet?
My question is, shouldn't the board be involved in
making these decisions?
If the board is not involved in these decisions, then
what authority does Mike Roberts have to expend funds
and to commit ICANN to contracts?
>-Discussion of anticipated income and expenditures and
>authorization for Interim CEO to proceed with expenditures
>within the availability of funds.
So, how can any of these decisions been made
*before* the board approved these powers, and
how can they be made without a 30 day, public
comment period?
According to this time line, it would appear that
Mike Roberts made these decisions before he had
authorization from the ICANN Board to do so.
At the DNSO meeting in Washington, Esther stated
that the ICANN Board will not bind ICANN, that
ICANN will. Upon further questioning, she said
that implied that the Executive Officer would
bind ICANN, only after approval by the board.
So what's going on here?
Here is the supporting documentation:
==================================================
On November 14, 1998, Mike Robert's said . . .
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/archive/transintro.html
O'BRIEN & LEVINE COURT REPORTING SERVICES 28
18 And so this is day six of work of week
19 three of the corporate existence of ICANN.
O'BRIEN & LEVINE COURT REPORTING SERVICES 29
2 I'm responsible now for a small company
3 with a staff of five people, including myself. My
4 vice president is Ceta (phonetic) Winslow, who is
5 here with us. Ceta, why don't you stand up and
6 let everybody see you in the back here. She's
7 responsible for -- she was John's invaluable
8 assistant over the course of the summer in working
9 through the process, and she's responsible for the
10 day-to-day activities in Marina Del Ray where our
11 administrative and technical headquarters are.
12 And she's backed up by an extremely loyal and
13 dedicated staff there composed of Joyce Reynolds
14 and John Shelby and Suzanne Wall.
O'BRIEN & LEVINE COURT REPORTING SERVICES 30
16 my personal priorities working
17 with the Board at the present time include
18 completing the negotiation of the three major
19 agreements that will have immediate contractual
20 force for the company.
O'BRIEN & LEVINE COURT REPORTING SERVICES 31
10 And of course the third agreement is to
11 take what we've stepped in and did without
12 crossing T's and dotting I's with respect to the
13 staff in (inaudible), and that is to complete an
14 agreement with the University of Southern
15 California for some of our administrative staff
16 arrangements.
=====================================================
On Wednesday, November 25, 1998, Becky Burr told
the ORSC negotiating team that Mike Roberts had
mis-spoken, and that the IANA staff at ISI/USC
had *not* transferred to his supervision.
=====================================================
On January 4, 1999, the following appeared in the
Commerce Business Daily . . .
>>INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY
>>Category : <D> (Automatic Data Processing and Telecommunication Services)
>>Address : National Institute of Standards & Technology, Acquisition &
>> Assistance Div.,100 Bureau Drive Stop 3572, Bldg. 301, Rm B117,
>> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3572Sol. no. : 52SBNT9C1020
>>Contact : Teresa A. Reefe, Contract Specialist (301) 975-6364 or Lisa K.
>> Jandovitz, Contracting Officer (301) 975-6344Due : 18 Feb, 1999
<<snip>>
>> On December 24, 1998, USC, entered a
>> transition agreement under which ICANN acquired the expertise and
>> resources to perform the IANA function described in the TNT contract.
>> Pursuant to its agreement with USC, ICANN now possesses the unique
>> attributes and characteristics specific to the IANA functional tasks.
============================================================
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com