RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

A PDP can recommend that the Board incorporate changes into future 
contracts, or can recommend that ICANN attempt to negotiate changes, 
and this was the limit of what PDP'06 could do. Unless a current 
contract allows for unilateral changes (as they do for things 
considered within the picket fence), they cannot be changed other 
than by standard business practices.
Alan

At 07/07/2010 04:12 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> Alan, I disagree.  PDP '06 was specifically devoted to contractual 
> conditions.  The domain tasting PDP changed contractual 
> conditions.  The WHOIS PDP will eventually change contractual 
> conditions.  My memory may be a little hazy, but I thought this 
> Vertical Integration group is a PDP Working Group, or at least a 
> "pre-PDP" working group.  Even those advocates of the status quo 
> have agreed at least that there should be more study in a later/ongoing PDP.
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> <http://rodenbaugh.com/>http://rodenbaugh.com
>
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 12:56 PM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeff Eckhaus'; 
> Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument
>
> At 07/07/2010 01:25 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> And in any event, any such harms, if serious enough, can be 
> addressed through a later PDP.
> Just one comment since similar things have been said by a number of 
> people. We are talking about contractual conditions here. No PDP, 
> regardless of the level of GNSO support or Board support, has the 
> power to alter those.
> Alan