RE: [council] RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

DEAR John

 

Interesting response Not responsive.

 

It doesn't matter that discussions started on 'date x, if the policy
development process covers A through Z. 

 

The participants in processes of c, T and Y' should understand that they are
going to be affected by policy process of z. 

 

You seem to be advising me, as an ICANN stakeholder, BC policy rep, and GNSO
Councilor, that I have no standing, since ICANN has decided to adv ace
registry agreement, OUTSIDE of pending policy advice.

 

This doesn't compute. 

 

The GNSO is responsible for policy for gTLDS.

There is an official policy process.

 

Somehow there is a staff negotiation that ignores the existence of a policy
process of relevance. 

 

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

 

Now, how could that be? 

 

We need to align the policy process with decisions of ICANN. 

 

IF the ICANN staff  are suggesting that the bottom up, policy process of
ICANN  SHOULD BE IGNORED, let's address that now. and if not,then let's just
get back to work and support the PDP process of the gnso.

 

we can debate this on the tf call tomorrow.  

 

Marilyn

  _____  

From: John Jeffrey [mailto:john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 7:33 PM
To: Marilyn Cade; Cubberley, Maureen ((CHT));
pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Council GNSO
Cc: Denise Michel
Subject: Re: [council] RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10
August

 

Marilyn, Councilors and TF Members,

 

Thanks for raising the important issues addressed in your email earlier
today.  I have reviewed your comments regarding the relationship between the
BIZ, .INFO and .ORG agreements and the pdp feb 06 and just wanted to add
some additional facts and points of consideration for additional
consideration and clarity around these topics.

 

It is important to note that both the .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG discussions are
scheduled to be in the stages proceeding their expiration (for .BIZ and
INFO next year), and that the posting of the agreements follow on from a
process that started in mid-2005 following the introduction of the revised
registry agreement form in the sTLD discussions and following the
introduction of the revised 2005 version of the .NET Agreement.  These
discussions started well in advance of the idea for the contractual
conditions pdp launched during the revised .COM agreement public comment
process.  It is also important to note that we have continued in negotiating
and finalizing the sTLD agreements during this time, as well.

 

The proposed terms on the .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG agreements were posted for
public information 5 weeks ago, so I am a bit surprised that we are only now
hearing of your concern.  Additionally, the TF and the GNSO have been aware
of the negotiations relating to these agreements for quite some time.  The
expriation of these gTLD agreements (and the expiration of the .BIZ and
INFO agreements in particular) have been discussed in various forums and
the terms of all gTLD agreements remain publicly available.  

 

I am informed that there has been a long running discussion dating back to
the beginning of ICANN and that there is a disparity of opinion regarding
the relationship between the policy issues and specific contractual
agreements.  It is also my understanding that the issues being discussed in
the current pdp are unlikely to be resolved in a time frame that would
permit such policies or advice as might arise from this pdp to impact a
negotiation on these particular agreements.  In following the work of the
task force it appears that it will be difficult to reach a consensus, and if
such consensus were to emerge, the policy or advice must then be reviewed
and approved by the board, and then implemented by staff.  

 

I assume that there will continue to be pdp's in the GNSO that will impact
the various gTLD agreements (like those that have been approved and those
that have been pending for some time), and we cannot wait until all
potential policy or advice from such pdp's is concluded on all possible
issues before we negotiate agreements.

 

Based upon all of the above and the comments that I made at the onset of
this pdp, it is my opinion that the scope of this pdp should not seek to
place limitations on the negotiations of specific agreements.  Also, I would
also caution, once again, against the use of a pdp process to impact
specific agreements.  The appropriate process to raise concerns about the
posted agreements is the current public comment process for those
agreements.

 

best regards,

John Jeffrey

General Counsel & 

Secretary

ICANN

 

 

 

 

 

On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote:





I raised a topic on the Council call last week and believe it should also be
noted in the minutes of the TF meeting tomorrow as an issue of concern. I'll
preview it here for the TF members, and have copied Council, since not all
Councilors are on the TF.

 

IF the GNSO Council is responsible for developing policy for GTLDS, then we
really have to have an understanding that there will be consultation between
the GNSO Council and the ICANN staff when there is urgent need for policy
development. Several constituencies raised the issue with ICANN senior
management and the Board regarding the .com situation that we expected to be
advised by ICANN if we need to fast track policy.

 

I find myself disappointed, and concerned,  to see that we seem to have an
apparent disconnect between activities related to drafting and proposing new
versions of existing registry agreements as posted by the ICANN General
Council and the work of the TF PDP 06. Since there is a policy development
process underway, approved by consensus vote of the GNSO Council, directly
relevant to policies in existing contracts with registries, I believe that
registry agreements should be redrafted only after the conclusion of the PDP
and following its recommendations.  I am concerned to see a posting of three
registry agreements, one of which does not lapse until 2009, without any
acknowledgement of the pending work of the GNSO Council.

 

I note that ICANN staff mentioned on the Council call that these
negotiations were undertaken at the request of the registry operators, and I
am sure that is the case. That isn't the relevant point. The relevant point
is that there is policy development underway that is directly applicable.

 

I raised this concern on the GNSO Council call last week, and will post
further to Council regarding Council's position on its role in developing
and determining GNSO policy which is then recommended to the Board. Ignoring
Council's role essentially means that our work and indeed our role is
irrelevant to ICANN. I find it hard to believe, as I review the strong
endorsement given by ICANN's senior management to the importance of bottom
up policy development, that that would be intentional outcome of any
activities presently underway. However, it can be an unintentional, and
harmful outcome.

 

 I believe that Council must address the topic and raise the concern to the
Board and the Senior Staff, awareness of the direct linkage of this policy
development process to the recently posted revised registry agreements.  

 

I support the Chair's proposal that we need to commit to a published
timeline that achieves the needed, and detailed and complex work in the time
we have between now and San Paulo. I am concerned to see the face to face
meeting moved into October. If that is the best we can do, then we need to
accomplish work in the meantime via conf. call working sessions.

 

For the TF, we are going to have to meet more often, via conf. call, and
then face to face. Overall, we need to get this TF on a regular working
schedule. If we look at how frequently we have met, we see broad gaps. That
may signify that we need additional resources, and so tomorrow, I suggest
that we give consideration to recommending retention of not only independent
experts, but also possibly additional consulting resources to augment
existing staff resources. That may be the most practical approach to
ensuring that this important policy area is completed by the end of '06, as
originally conceptualized. We can then expect ICANN to advise us quickly of
resource availability to achieve the needed support to the TF.

 

Marilyn Cade

BC TF member/GNSO Councilor

 

 

P.S. I do have edits and suggestions for the draft report, but will do those
in marked up version for posting separately, after the call.

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cubberley, Maureen
(CHT)
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:16 PM
To: pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August

 

Hello All,

 

Draft agenda for Thursday's telecon is attached.

 

Thanks to everyone for creating time for this teleconference.  I realize
that the timing is inconvenient for many of the task force members, and I do
appreciate your effort to participate.

 

I look forward to our meeting on Thursday.

 

Best regards,

 

 Maureen.

 

Maureen Cubberley, Director

Public Library Services Branch

Department of Culture Heritage and Tourism

204-726-6864

 <mailto:mcubberley@xxxxxxxxx> mcubberley@xxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

John Jeffrey

john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx