Due to prompt action on the part of ICANN staff once this was called to their attention, the problem is now fixed and, due to some spam-cleaning done at the same time, the posting is now at http://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-general/msg00039.html/.
The implication of your posting that this might have been deliberate (at least as I read "singular impeachment") does not appear to me to be justified by anything I have seen. Instead, I suspect that the problem results from sloppy or incorrect implementations of the standards: software that relies on content-type information (in either email or HTTP) would presumably have no trouble opening the original message attachment. Software that relies, instead, on file "type" suffixes or other sometimes-random information, as much Windows-based software appears to do, can get itself and the user rather throughly confused. It is hard to realistically blame that problem on some malice or conspiracy at ICANN (or the ITU, or anywhere else in that set of processes).
People will have to decide for themselves how "most important" this entry is. Personally, I found it a bit circuitous, asking for discussion (clearly a good idea) rather than really taking a position. I was, however, pleased to see the ITU Secretary General recognizing IETF's role in ENUM... that part of the story has sometimes gotten lost.
And, contrary to your note, the posted note appears to comment directly only on one of the two TEL. proposals and not at all on the MOBI. one. Whether one can impute a conspiracy to that, or whether the ITU really only sees a significant problem with that one proposal, is something you would have to address with them.
regards, john
--On Friday, 30 April, 2004 18:36 +0200 jfcm <info@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
At 03:42 30/04/04, John C Klensin wrote:http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/stld-public-comme nts.htm
Dear John, it seems that (one of the) most important entry (the letter from ITU regarding the .tel/.mobi requests) cannot be accessed. http://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-general/msg00043.html This seems to be a singular impeachment to a transparent debate on the matter. Due to the delay I suggest that ITU sends IETF a copy while you might as a BoD Member ask staff to urgently correct that situation. jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf