<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment
Milton, is "appalled" an objective concept?
With respect to your questions:
(1) the Board, not me, decides when they should act. We have told the
Board that the practical deadline for action, in order to meet the existing
contractual deadline, is April 1. It seems to me that it would be prudent,
if you would like to offer views to the Board, that you get them to it
before April 1, just in case they take our advice.
(2) as I noted, these are either contract terms or are included in the DNSO
recommendation to establish a limited number of new TLDs; are you
suggesting that every step after that recommendation required a prior DNSO
referral? Are you suggesting that every contract that ICANN signs needs to
have the prior approval of the NC? Or only certain contracts? With
respect to the fee arrangements, the specific language in these contracts
sets caps, not fees. It simply provides a limit on what can be charged to
the registry operator absent a different ICANN policy. The actual fees are
determined by a consensus process on an annual basis, and through the ICANN
budget process, again annually. There is no policy issue here, and if
there is, the community will have a full opportunity to participate through
the fee or budget process.
(3) I don't understand this question. ICANN policies are established by
the process set forth in the bylaws. Contracts are private agreements
negotiated between two parties. The contracts must obviously be consistent
with established policy, and if you or anyone else thinks the ICANN
policies are wrong or should be changed for any reason, you should initiate
a consensus policy process to accomplish that change. But it is nonsense
to say, if this is your point, that any contract or contract term that you
or someone else thinks is important is a "policy" that must be referred to
a SO.
Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone: 1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax: 1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone: 1.703.629.3963
"Milton Mueller"
<Mueller@syr.edu To: <jsims@JonesDay.com>
> cc: <council@dnso.org>,
<owner-council@dnso.org>, <baf@fausett.com>,
<touton@icann.org>
03/02/01 07:16 Subject: Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity
PM for Comment
Joe:
My comments addressed substantive issues in objective terms. Try to respond
in kind.
Specifically, you can do three things:
1. Tell us: If the NC puts this item on its agenda for April 10, will you
take decisive action before that, to pre-empt its consideration? If the
Names Council votes against the proposed contract in its April 10 meeting,
will you ignore that decision and claim that what you do is a "consensus
policy?"
2. Point me to previous "consensus processes" that ratified:
a) integration of the registry and registrar functions in COM
b) 15% annual increases in registry fees payable to ICANN
c) Presumptive renewal for COM
3. I'd also appreciate a more precise definition of the difference between
a policy decision and a "contract term." Since all ICANN policies must be
implemented through contracts, understanding this distinction has rather
significant implications for the future.
>>> "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com> 03/02/01 04:10PM >>>
As has been obvious for some time, Milton, you are easily appalled, but it
would be useful if you would read before you write.
==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|