<html>
<body>
At 11:10 17-08-05 -0400, you wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Luxembroug GAC meeting. And the
GAC itself did NOT pass a resolution or<br>
go through any formal process to ask to recall the delegation.
What</blockquote><br>
Noone is recalling the delegation. Please, read the letters from the GAC
chair, and the USG again.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">really happened is that the US
Commerce Department basically ordered<br>
ICANN to delay it and then "politely requested" the GAC
Chairman (who is<br>
known to be close to the US) to send a letter to ICANN so that the
order<br>
would have some legitimate "cover."</blockquote><br>
That sounds absurd, for at least reasons:<br>
a) it spreads a shadow over Sharil (and you know, such shadows are
actually the worst possible ones, when they are based, as we say in
Bulgaria, "SHS, or Someone Has Said") <br>
b) the US DoC also - as far as I can read - has not "ordered"
ICANN to delay or recall. <br>
c) ICM has agreed on that new period for comments. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Here is a recitation of the
relevant facts:</blockquote><br>
I think there are not facts, but facts with comments. That makes them not
very reliable. I can comment on some of them:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> * At Luxembourg (July
9-15), neither the GAC nor the US made <br>
a request to stop the delegation. That was before Mr. Sampson, a new
<br>
Commerce Dept official was appointed</blockquote><br>
And it was also before the WGIG report was officially released, and
before the launch of the space shuttle, and before the formation of the
new government in Bulgaria, etc., etc. But what's more - even after
Luxembourg NOONE has requested to stop the delegation. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> * All the outraged letters
from Christian conservatives (and<br>
pornographers posing as such) came into the Commerce Dept. <br>
weeks before the Luxembourg meeting</blockquote><br>
This, again, is not a fact. This is what you've read in the letter. Long
time ago, I was one of the initiators for sending similar letters to my
government. It's easy to do it with a simple script. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> * David Sampson was made
new Deputy Secty of Commerce July 22. </blockquote><br>
I haven't checked, but I guess it's a fact. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> * The US Commerce Dept
letter to ICANN is dated August 11, about two<br>
weeks after Sampson was appointed. </blockquote><br>
Again - the fact is the date.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> * The GAC Chairman's
letter to ICANN is dated August 13, and<br>
obviously follows the US initiative.</blockquote><br>
Well, that is not true. The US DoC letter is dated August 11, but is
received on August 15th, 2 days after your previous "fact".
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> * The US letter was buried
in the "Correspondence" section of ICANN's<br>
web site.<br>
* The GAC letter was put on the front page, providing a nice
cover<br>
for the US initiative.</blockquote><br>
All letters are published on
<a href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/</a> <br>
To say it was "buried" is not a fact, but an opinion. And in my
<b><i>opinion</i></b>, yours is wrong this time. <br><br>
<br>
best,<br>
veni</body>
</html>