Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

["Joe Sims" <jsims@jonesday.com>]

we have obviously reached the end of the time when further back and forth
is useful


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 08:10       Subject:     Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity 
                    PM                      for Comment                                    
                                                                                           
                                                                                           






>>> "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.







==========
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.
==========