RE: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Draft Final Report & Staff Memo

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am of the view that ICANN must include the aspect of acting in the public
trust... in the limited but critical area in which it is responsible ...
certainly when we founded ICANN, that was part of the 'contract' with the
community. So, Ross, I share your perspective.

I am increasingly disappointed by the gap that seems to exist -- some of us
have comment on it numerous times, and we can all see some registries that
seem to accept and embrace this concept, and others that don't. 

I take note that many businesses are well aware of the concept of operating
in the public trust/including many cc registries, etc. and even publicly
traded companies can act responsibly and make such a concept part of their
mission.

We do need to remember to use the phrase 'ICANN staff or ICANN Board'. ICANN
is the community. 

I will try to do better on that myself. 

So, when I say "ICANN must include the aspect.." I mean that the ICANN board
and staff need to be guided by the community on this very important value.
I would have thought that the ICANN board, and the ICANN staff, as they are
expressing support and interest in addressing IDNs with such importance,
would be reflecting that very concept of an aspect of the public trust... so
I find this situation ironic... and disappointing.

That being said, I do think that improvements can be made in clarity in some
Areas in what are present draft policy recommendations... isn't that the
importance of 'draft/taking comments/etc. ? 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:09 AM
To: Philip Sheppard
Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Draft Final Report & Staff Memo

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> This is disappointing.
> At best it suggests there will continue to be inconsistency and arbitrary
clauses in
> contracts.
> At worst it suggests there will be opportunities for competitive abuse.

Agreed, but I'm not sure that further examination of "why" is going to 
get us closer to the answers that we're looking for. I've long held the 
view that staff and board have a much different view of the nature of 
these contracts and the services that are being contracted for than the 
community does. The language of these contracts, and the processes 
around them, suggests that ICANN is entering into franchising 
arrangements. It suggests that ICANN does not view the registries as 
managers in trust of a public resource.

I believe that we need to have a conversation, within the ICANN 
community, to settle out exactly what it is that we believe that we are 
managing. Until we do, we're never going to be able to get down to the 
real issues as we'll be distracted by dealing with the symptoms, and not 
the cause.

-ross