Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

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

>>> "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com> 03/02/01 07:53PM >>>

>Milton, is "appalled" an objective concept?

Certainly. It is a wholly objective description of my feelings ;-)

>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.  

OK. If there is support within the NC for considering this at its April 10 meeting, I will convey directly to the Board our sense that waiting 10 days would be wise. I think they will listen.

>(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?  

I am forced to repeat myself:

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

What you have written above, obviously, are rhetorical questions designed to distract attention from my original questions.