Good work, Danny. There are a few oversights here. We did comment on
some of these things.  I go through your list point by point:

>>> Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> 10/12/2006 9:08:47 AM >>>
>For example, there are areas in which the NCUC has
>made no formal statement -- an illustration:  In
>response to the term of reference that stated: 
>"Determine how ICANN's public budgeting process should
>relate to the negotiation of ICANN fees", the NCUC has
>offered no formal response. 

Correct. It iseems to be a nitty-gritty registtry issue and we did not
feel we understood the options or the implications of various options.
If you think you do, feel free to formulate responses.

>Another example with no NCUC response:  "Examine
>objective measures (cost calculation method, cost
>elements, reasonable profit margin) for approving an
>application for a price increase when a price cap
>exists."

Correct, although this was not addressed deliberately. We didn't decide
we liked price caps until Marrakech. We did not discuss how to raise or
lower them. We also were somewhat concerned about the implications of
doing cost studies, those of us with experience in telecom policy and
the regulation of telepphone monopolies know what an enormous can of
worms this is.

>Again, "Recognizing that not all existing registry
>agreements share the same Rights of Renewal, use the
>findings from above to determine whether or not these
>conditions should be standardized across all future
>agreements", the NCUC did not address this question
>directly.

We have many statements, although admittedly disorganized and spread
over time, indicating that we favor standardized agreements.
Standardized agreements reduce the aritrary power of ICANN centralized,
create a more level playing field, and make it easier for people to
undersrtand. 

>Also, "Examine whether the delegation of certain
>policy making responsibility to sponsored TLD
>operators is appropriate, and if so, what if any
>changes are needed", -- no commentary from the NCUC.

Our statement said: "We believe that existing sponsored domains should
retain the policy-making authority. We  say this not because we support
the concept of sponsored domains per se, but because we  support greater
diversity and decentralization of policy making authority." 

>In my view, the constituency should be discussing
>these and other issues.  Perhaps our Policy Council
>could convene a meeting to systematically consider the
>constituency response to the PDP's Terms of Reference
>on a point-by-point basis...


As I said before, the "policy council" c'est nous. Call a meeting and
see who shows up.