[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 10

In message <55BB79F4004C439393E855B0BC8065F6 at SuperPC>, 
"Marilson" <marilson.mapa at gmail.com> wrote:

>I would like to nominate a person for the second chair: meu amigo Ronald F. 
>Guilmette (friend for one more day).

While I appreciate this unexpected (and largely unearned) vote of
confidence, unfortunately I find it necessary to quote a man whose
actual accomplishments actually did warrant his consideration for
high office:

	"If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve."
					-- William Tecumseh Sherman

(I might actually be tempted to volunteer for the position is question,
but given that I am not physically present anywhere within the RIPE
geographical region, I feel sure that even if relevant bylaws permitted
it, I would be committing a serious disservice to the entire WG if I
were to make any pretense of fulfilling the role in question, e.g. by
merely "phoning it in", so to speak.)


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  Thanks largely to absoluely everybody on this mailing list, I was
compelled to do the research and to find my own answers to the two key
questions that I posted here the other day.  The clear implications of
what I found (in the ICANN 2013 RAA) are, I would say, worse than disturbing,
about which I will have more to say later on.

What I found does raise one other question however... which I will post
here now in the complete expectation of the exact same level of helpful
responsiveness which you all accorded to my last two questions:

When the exact wording of the 21013 RAA was being negotiated... by
ICANN, sitting across the table from such other "stakeholders" as the
Registrars Committee... who exactly was the lead negotiator for ICANN's
side of the table?