<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment
As has been obvious for some time, Milton, you are easily appalled, but it
would be useful if you would read before you write. Louis said in his
posting that the issues about the future of .org are policy decisions that
should go through the consensus process. With respect to all the other
issues you raise, these are either the results of a previous consensus
process, including recommendations by the DNSO, or mere contract terms,
which are not policy issues. A policy is just that; it is not a contract
term. You, like everyone else, are perfectly free to offer whatever views
you want on the contracts, which is why they were posted, but they are
clearly not matters on which referral to the DNSO is required or warranted.
It seems to me it would be more useful to focus your limited time on the
substance of the issues you want to address, rather than continuing to tilt
at this particular windmill.
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: <council@dnso.org>, <touton@icann.org>
> cc: <baf@fausett.com>
Subject: Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity
Sent by: for Comment
owner-council@dn
so.org
03/02/01 03:43
PM
>>> 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.
==========
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
>>>
|