<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] If PIR is violating its own advisory charter, why do they expect to have .org renewed?
- To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] If PIR is violating its own advisory charter, why do they expect to have .org renewed?
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
As of the time I sent this e-mail, he still appears on the PIR website:
http://www.pir.org/AboutPIR/CouncilMembers.aspx#mmann
They might wish to update their website, accordingly, and apologize to
"Fundraiser" from DomainState, who brought up the issue well before I
did.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
--- Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> George,
> I was just informed that Michael Mann has resigned from the Advisory
> Council.
>
> Thereby the problem with PIR breaching it´s own procedures is solved.
>
> best,
> Veni
>
>
> At 09:21 PM 12.10.2006 '?.' -0700, George Kirikos wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >According to the .org Advisory Council Charter:
> >
> >http://www.pir.org/PDFs/pir_ac_charter.pdf
> >
> >"Section 3:... No two members of the Council will be from the same
> >non-commercial organization."
> >
> >Michael Mann and Angela Stuber are both from Grassroots.org:
> >
> >http://www.pir.org/AboutPIR/CouncilMembers.aspx
>
>http://www.grassroots.org/page.ww?section=Highlights&name=Content+Detail+-+Volunteer
>
>http://www.grassroots.org/page.ww?section=About&name=Board+of+Directors
> >
> >Apparently, when this was brought to the attention of PIR, instead
> of
> >rectifying the issue, they "did not see a problem with it".
> >
>
>http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&postid=327276#post327276
> >
> >I have nothing against Grassroots.org, but perhaps ICANN and the
> public
> >should seriously consider whether PIR, an organization that
> seemingly
> >has no regard for their own charter, should be operating such an
> >important registry as .org. Indeed, with presumptive renewal, it
> would
> >be next to impossible to remove a registry operator.
> >
> >This is yet another reason why presumptive renewal should never
> exist
> >in any registry agreement.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >George Kirikos
> >http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Veni Markovski
> http://www.veni.com
>
> check also my blog:
> http://blog.veni.com
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|