Adam: 
I'll start with your last paragraph because I found it very heartening.
it describes, in a nutshell, what I have been trying to do. You said:

>I wouldn't be unhappy to see a statement warning 
>ICANN of our concerns, set things up for a 
>statement should our fears be realized. And 
>criticizing NTIA for what I think was unfair an 
>inappropriate pressure, particularly when quoting 
>a bunch of from letters from one of the 
>administration's basest political lobbies.

If you believe that, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to get
agreement. Because that's exactly the message I am trying to convey.
Maybe (no, almost certainly!) I am not doing a very good job of it. But
something does need to be done. 

The proposed statement does not explicitly "point the finger" at NTIA
because in my judgment it would be counterproductive. We need to speak
in more principled terms about the role of governments.

>>> Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> 08/19/05 8:11 AM >>>
>Milton, don't see why GAC's request was against 
>any defined procedure. But perhaps I 
>misunderstand the bylaws.  Please explain.

The problem is that there was no GAC request. There was a GAC Chair
request. There are procedures for GAC to offer policy advice to the
Board. They weren't followed. 

>It's irritating, it indicates problems with the 
>process, but where does it say GAC can't make a 
>request of this kind? It wasn't totally 

I am not concerned about the GAC request per se. I would be upset about
such a request, but I would not view it as an emergency. What makes it
an emergency is the US Commerce Department's exercise of its unilateral
power to back that request up, and the politics behind it.

I have real trouble understanding how CS people can on the one hand
back the WGIG Report's request to do something about unilateral control
and then stand by idly when it is openly exercised for the first time.

>I don't see GAC and NTIA acting in concert.  US 
>may have been one govt to ask GAC to ask for a 
>delay, but there are very strong indications they 
>were not the only ones.

Disagree, but as I have indicated many times it is not important to
what we need to do here.