[gnso-dow123] RE: questions for 3/15 discussion re recommendation 2

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Steve:
I appreciate your careful contextualization of your questions, but am
wondering whether we are supposed to transmit to the staff a list of
specific questions or more involved discussions. In case it is the
former, I have made an effort here to edit your first question into a
briefer, bullet-listed sort of questions: (see below). I must confess
that I found it difficult to translate your second point, about item 6
of Verhoef's letter, into a question, it is more an observation and
background.

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


>>> "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx> 3/10/2005 11:56:41 AM
>>>

The principal concerns expressed in the letter of December 20 seem to
be:

(A)   The provision in bullet iii of Step Three that lays down a
"general rule" regarding the General Counsel's recommendation (also
applicable in Step Four)

(B)    The requirement that enforcement action against a non-compliant
registrar in these circumstances be taken only with the approval of the
Board of Directors 

(C)    The expectation that the recommendation to the Board would (at
least "ordinarily," see Step Five) be made public 

(D)     The allocation of certain duties to the General Counsel rather
than other parts of the ICANN staff 

Are these in fact your principal substantive concerns with the
recommendation? If so, these are all quite legitimate questions on which
it would be beneficial to get the perspectives of responsible members of
the ICANN staff.  However if there are other concerns it would be
essential to surface them as soon as possible.