Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment
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.
In my message of yesterday morning I conveyed the Board's invitation to
the Names Council (as well as the Address and Protocol Councils) to
review and provide any comments/recommendations on whether the proposed
revision is in the best interest of the Internet community. This sort
of collaboration among the various bodies making up ICANN is sound
practice. But there is no basis I am aware of that would require or
even authorize any "approval" by the Names Council.
The only substantive "policy" issue (of the type to be referred to a
Supporting Organization under the bylaws) that appears to be raised by
the proposed revisions is the future restrictions (if any) on .org, but
if the VeriSign proposal is accepted that will in fact be the subject of
ICANN process, including the DNSO, over the next year, and it does not
require any action at this time.
Milton Mueller wrote:
> Because the Names Council must approve the new Verisign proposal, I propose that we put it on the NC agenda for a vote at the April 10 meeting.
> If the proposal is approved, an April 10 decision would allow plenty of lead time to make the necessary adjustments in time for the May 10 deadline. If it is not approved, it won't matter.
> >>> Louis Touton <email@example.com> 03/01/01 10:52PM >>>
> [snip] 1 April is a rough practical deadline for decision on the VeriSign