<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August
- To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)" <MCubberley@xxxxxxxxx>, pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August
- From: Alistair DIXON <Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:19:28 +1200
I would like to add my voice in support of Marilyn's comments in her email
below. The current situation of staff renogiating registry contracts,
apparently independently of the PDP06 work is entirely unsatisfactory. These
negotiations are in effect policy making on the fly and risk setting precedents
for the PDP06 work without any apparent regard to good policy making
principles. I therefore agree with Marilyn that the best course would be for
these negotiations to be put on hold until the PDP06 work is complete. This is
a reasonable course of action to take as none of these agreements are due to
expire this year. With concentrated effort, appropriate resources and
assistance and good will there is no reason why this work cannot be completed
in time to allow for adequate time for the conclusion of these negotiations
before the agreements expire.
As Marilyn says, these negotiations mean that the PDP06 work becomes a high
priority. I think the task force needs the assistance of independent experts
and appropriate consulting resources to work through some of the tricky policy
issues confronting us. Such additional resources are critical for ensuring
that the work can be completed quickly.
Regarding independent experts, some task force members have argued that they
would be able to provide the apropriate expertise. While I would add myself to
this list in the areas of anti-trust and resource allocation since these
matters are my day job, I along with everybody else on the task force will be
representing my constituency in this work. As a result, while I may respresent
my views as the objective opinion of an expert in a particular field, I would
not expect other constituencies to agree that my views are objective because I
represent a particular constituency. I don't believe the situation is any
different for other task force members. An independent expert or experts that
do not have a particular barrow to push will be of great assistance in helping
us resolve the difficult policy issues confronting this task force in a timely
way. Identifying appropriate independent experts should be a priority.
Finally, I am not able to join the call tonight because it starts at 2am my
time and I do have a day job. I know that I live in a difficult time zone
compared with most of the planet's population but I would appreciate more
consideration when setting meeting times in future. I already have to deal
with council calls running from midnight to 2am so I do not think it
unreasonable to ask that neither council nor taskforce calls are scheduled
between the hours of 2 and 5am for any council or task force member. I accept
that this is not possible for face-to-face meetings.
Best regards
Alistair
Alistair Dixon
Industry and Regulatory Affairs
Ph +64 4 920 3098 (Wellington) Telstra Clear Ltd
Ph +64 29 912 4301 (mobile) PO Box 1271
Ph +64 9 912 4301 (Auckland) Centreport
Fax +64 4 920 3588 Wellington
alistair.dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Thursday, 10 August 2006 08:28
To: 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)'; pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Council GNSO'; 'John Jeffrey'; denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August
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
mcubberley@xxxxxxxxx
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|