[alac] Re: Your comment to the ALAC

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Denise Michel wrote:

> I don't know what happend to the comment you sent to the ALAC (which address
> did you use?), but I will add your comment (below) on the ALAC's draft
> criteria and guidelines to the forum archive.  My email to Danny Younger
> addresses other questions you raised, and I have included it below.

OK, one more time...

Question 1:  Did I send it to the right place?

Here's the header from my "sent mail" folder...

   From karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx Thu Apr 24 04:05:20 2003
   Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
   From: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
   To: forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   Subject: Comments on "Proposed Criteria..."

"forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" is the address shown in the document at 
http://alac.icann.org/drafts/draft-als-ralo-9apr03.htm

And that address is consistent with you put into your mail to which I am 
now responding:

> Individuals have been encouraged to send their substantive comments on
> pending ALAC-related issues to <forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ...

So there is utterly no doubt that I sent the material to the right e-mail 
address.

Question 2:  So did it get lost along the way?  Let's look:

Here is the log entry from my outermost mail relay...

   Apr 23 01:06:20 p2 sendmail[23706]: h3N86GCo023704:
   to=<forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ctladdr=<karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> (2000/100),
   delay=00:00:04, xdelay=00:00:04, mailer=esmtp, pri=30567,
   relay=pechora.icann.org. [192.0.34.35], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent 
   (h3N87VH30008 Message accepted for delivery)

So it is clear that my mail made it to "pechora.icann.org" a few seconds
after I sent it.

In other words, my mail was sent to the right place and was received by 
ICANN.  After that... well, that's on your side of the wall.

I would further suggest that there is now an open question regarding other
postings that may have disappeared.  Without the "forum" being visible
people had, and continue to have, no way to verify whether their comments
were received or not.

That, coupled with the lack of ability for people to comment upon the
invisible comments, are good and substantive reasons to re-open the
comment and discussion period.

                --karl--