Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

>>> Louis Touton <touton@icann.org> 03/02/01 02:50PM >>>
>How do you come to the conclusion that the NC "must approve" the
>agreements?  The DNSO/NC's role within ICANN is to make recommendations
>for new substantive policies.  It does not have any role in approving
>new or revised agreements.  

Utter nonsense. As you know perfectly well, ICANN defines and implements policy through its contracts with registries and registrars. If the DNSO cannot have any role in approving these contracts, then it has no influence over policy. 

Your decision that ORG must be assigned to a non-profit organization is a policy decision. Deciding that registrations in ORG will be limited to "non-profit organizations" is also a policy decision (one that, contrary to your assertions, has no basis in RFC 1591 or any other prior decision, and could have a substantial impact on current registrants in that space).

Your decision that the current level of market competition justifies allowing integrated ownership of COM registrar and registry is a huge policy decision. Personally I agree with it but on procedural rather than substantive grounds, it flies in the face of ICANN's process to say that registrar and registry and other impacted constituencies have no vote on it.

Fixing the price of a registry is a regulatory policy decision. Taxing the registry to support ICANN (at a rate that increases 15% a year, interestingly) is a policy decision. Don't you think registrar and registry constituencies, including the ccTLDs, have a right to review and approve those decisions?

The fact that these contracts are used as a template that will most likely be applied to all future registries also has long term policy implications.

A policy of "presumptive renewal" for COM is, well, a policy. 

Frankly, Louis, I am appalled at the ICANN staff's total abandonment of the bottom-up concept.