R Tindal comments

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

The current (COM/ NET/ORG/ BIZ/ INFO etc) contracts have effective mechanisms 
for change on issues that are inside the picket fence, or covered by Consensus 
or Temporary policies.  These mechanisms should be retained for new TLDs.

The more complex problem is desired changes that cannot be adequately addressed 
by Consensus or Temporary policies.   These changes will typically be more 
administrative in nature - but some may have a significant impact on ICANN - 
e.g. registry fees.   

I understand the desire of Staff to achieve efficiency and timeliness in such 
changes, but on balance I think the unpredictability and risk to registries and 
their customers dictates that any change mechanism for new TLDs must  be 
intrinsically conservative (difficult to unilaterally impose on registries).    
 On balance, I prefer the mechanism proposed by the Registry Constituency at 
the Washington DC consultation in January this year.  Namely, a good faith 
negotiation every three years to effect changes.  

Thank you for your consideration of these comments

Richard Tindal