I'll submit an edit that reflects my view of how the two docs should be merged. That might be more appropriate at this point. >>> Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> 10/17/2006 4:21 PM >>> Milton, Thank you for the input and the pointers to established constituency positions. I will begin the re-write. Best wishes, Danny --- Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Danny: > I'm impressed by your energy but very disappointed > by your decision to > completely alter established NCUC positions. > > The constituency has over the course of the last 6 > months staked out a > clear and consensual position on the renewal issue. > You have completely > abandoned that, despite no indications of support > from others in the > constituency, and come up with an entirely new and > different position. > The position is very complicated, based on ccTLD > procedures, and takes > the registrar constituency position on rebids. > > That's not the way things can be done here. Please > refer to the > existing NCUC statement on renewal expectancy, > http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0604&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&X=6285946F42781A231F&Y=mueller%40syr.edu&P=6368 > > > and also to the notes of the NCUC meeting in > Marrakech, drafted by > Carlos. > http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0606&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&X=1988C02DA913349905&Y=mueller%40syr.edu&P=8740 > > > Any position must use these discussions and drafts > as a starting point. > > > The Marrakech meeting discussed these positions > extensively. That was > in fact the largest real-time grouping of > constituency members in some > time. It is unacceptable to trash that work. > > Please do not submit this report to the Rapporteur > group, or to anyone > else, otherwise the constituency will have to > disavow it and that will > make us all look ridiculous, and undermine your > credibility in the > process. > > I have only read the renewal part. Since that was > completely orthogonal > to what we have discussed and written so far, I fear > going any further. > As time permits, I'll read the rest of it but can't > say that I am > looking forward to it. > > Really, Danny, show some respect for the fact that > this is a > CONSTITUENCY that needs to develop positions as a > group. > > > >>> Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> > 10/17/2006 8:24 AM >>> > Dear all, > > A formal NCUC Statement has been prepared covering > the > following topics: > > 1) gTLD renewal policy > 2) policy for gtld Consensus Policy limitations > 3) gTLD price control policy > 4) policy for ICANN fees pertaining to gTLDs > 5) policy on the use of gTLD registry data > 6) gTLD development/infrastructure investment > policy > > This statement is attached as a twenty (20) page > Word > document. The statement has already been forwarded > to > the NCUC Policy Committee for review and now awaits > your constituency member comments, suggested > modifications, and/or partial or complete revisions. > > Per the timetable established by Rapporteur Groups A > & > B, our final work-product must be submitted by 24 > October in order to be included in the Final Report > submitted to the GNSO PDP Task Force on Contractual > Conditions for Existing Registries. > > As the views of our constituency will not > necessarily > coincide with those expressed by other > constituencies, > it is important that a cogent Minority Report makes > its way to the ICANN Board via the GNSO's Final > Report. > > Each paragraph has been numbered for ease of > discussion, and all member comments will be > referenced > in the final version of this document. > > I look forward to your assistance in properly > presenting the NCUC view on these matters. > > Thank you for your assistance, > Danny Younger > isoc-ny > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com