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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Post one of two: this posting contains significant enhancements to the draft
work plan. My second post will include the line edits to the draft report,
inserting information that was submitted by the BC regarding the use of
independent experts that has somehow been omitted from the draft report and
asking the staff to treat all the constituency statements similarly. Right
now, the report summarizes two or three of the statements, but merely
acknowledges the others. The report h as to be more than a listing of
submissions. Added value is needed in the body of the report to add in
substance. I have been tied up all day on business activities and
unfortunately, my working day is not over. However, I will complete my
second posting before I close out my working day.   

 

 

 

Changes to the DRAFT work plan:  

 

I have spent some time reviewing the bylaws, the previous work of other TFs
and the topics we are addressing in this PDP -06. As the former chair of a
TF and co-chair of another TF, I am aware that the full TF has a
responsibility to manage and move the work, supported by staff. I greatly
appreciate the initial draft work plan that staff has posted for our review
and consideration. 

 

 

 

Accordingly, I?ve reviewed the work plan and believe it needs some
elaboration and augmentation.  One glaring omission that I just caught is
the omission of the face to face meeting that we have already agreed to. I
did book the AT&T Innovation Center as a possible option for that meeting
from 10-12 October, per the latest discussion. Other better meeting options
may exist, so I noted that the location is TBD.  AT&T will provide the space
without charge, and they have installed an overhead audio bridge that
supports desk mikes, similar to what we have used recently. That means most
of the structural planning support is taken care of. I believe we have those
dates blocked out, but if the dates change, I will need to reconfirm with
AT&T Innovation Center re availability. 

 

 

In reviewing this draft work plan, I have suggested some additional full TF
working sessions. Other TFs have had great success with some methods that
can be helpful for this TF. 

 

The WHOIS TF meets bi-weekly and has interacted with external sources on
several occasions, always improving the understanding of the TF members,
even though they have been working together for a longer period of time.
Other TFs have also conducted conf. call outreach sessions and benefited
from those interactions,. The President?s Advisory Committee on Strategy
recently held a 5+ hour outreach session and had some excellent inputs from
parties who would not have spent time drafting written submissions, but from
whom we learned a good deal.   The earlier WHOIS TF used sub groups to do
pieces of work and then share with the rest of the fuller TF, thus advancing
work when the chair wasn?t available, or when tasks could be subdivided and
then brought back together. 

 

Overall, to achieve an effective and well documented work product, this TF
needs to increase its working together and to augment how it works. In a few
cases, it is possible that subgroups of TF members who are available can
advance work that the fuller TF can then review and discuss/agree to. In
other cases, the work should be inclusive of the full TF.  I?ve identified
suggested enhancements and augmentations to the work load. 

 

While I understand that some will be dismayed at the opportunity for more
conference calls and meetings, we have to be realistic about our
responsibility to fully address and explore the issues in order to make
policy recommendations that stand up to the high standard that the GNSO
prides itself on, and that the fuller community expects from the bottom up,
consensus based policy development process at ICANN that helps to provide
accountability and credibility to ICANN. 

 

My changes appear in blue, include additional events and processes, and have
a few comments that are in [ ] that should be read as mere commentary. 

 

DRAFT Work plan

 

 

 

 

 

16 August 2006:  Final edits to be sent on Preliminary Taskforce Report.
Please include "impact on constituency analysis" and please provide specific
text change suggestions.

 

 

 MSC comments:  it will be necessary to give the Constituencies the
opportunity to comment after there are draft recommendations re the
?impact?.

 

 

16 August 2006:  Final deadline for submission of suggestions for expert
materials

 

 

SEVERAL SUGGESTED ADDITIONS TO WORK PLAN FOLLOW;  

 

 

18 August 2006: Deadline for submission of questions for experts

 

 

 

23 August 2006:  Distribution of expert materials for consideration by the
TF. 

 

 

 25 August 2006:   Ad hoc working group of interested TF members to organize
the submitted questions, align them, and create final draft list of
questions.

 

[MSC COMMENTS:  I?ve seen some questions to date and realize that the TF can
work as a sub committee of interested parties to take the final set of
submitted questions from all TF members and help to organize them into
logical categories, with staff supporting this effort.  It is possible that
some TF members can use an additional day or two for submitting questions.
Given how the work is progressing, using this approach will supplement the
limited staffing resources but also not require all TF members to
participate. Since the call would be to do really an administrative
organizing task, I would suggest that it doesn?t need a chair, but can be a
voluntary working group. ] the output of questions will be posted to the
fuller TF for final edits and return with 72 hours. 

 

28 August  2006:  final list of questions for experts available. 

 

September 7 : and September 14 :    Working calls of TF to discuss ?expert
materials? in a moderated roundtable dialogue to discuss views of TF on the
expert papers distributed. TF members can volunteer to lead a discussion of
a particular ?paper? or view. These should be working conference calls, with
transcription and heavy/accurate minutes of the outcomes of the discussions.
This is not decisional, but will ensure a sharing of views and perspectives
of what the expert materials ?mean;? or how they can be used/applied. TF
members can ?sign up? for analyzing or leading the discussion on particular
materials. Not all TF members need to participate in the discussions, but at
least one rep from each constituency should be available. Observers can be
accommodated in listen in mode. The availability of the transcript and
minutes that document any outcomes and ?agreements? or lack thereof will
augment the record of the work of the TF.

 

September 18 and September 20:  Conference calls with independent experts re
the questions agreed to in earlier work of 

TF.  These calls can be one to two hour conference calls, with identified
/invited experts who discuss the questions sent by the TF. As described in
the BC?s proposal, while it possible to have constituencies propose a
representative to present a perspective, this is not a replacement for
independent experts with anti trust and competition expertise, including
from competition authorities.  These calls should be organized in advance
with bios of the independent experts, transcribed, and become part of the
documentation and available materials that support the TF?s work.

 

21 September 2006:  Proposed date for next teleconference - agenda will be
sent 7 days prior to the call.  Call designed to discuss recommendations
that can be drawn of review of expert materials and consultation with
independent experts, and discuss the impact on draft recommendations for the
Preliminary Taskforce Report.  Note that this is after the already scheduled
Amsterdam meetings and after the regular GNSO Council call on 14 September.

 

 

 

 

 

28 September 2006:  Release completed  Preliminary Taskforce Report and
begin 20 day public comment period

 

2-6 October 2006 /or 10-12 October at face to face meeting:    TF to host
open conference calls to hear public comments on the Preliminary Task Force
Report. Calls should be organized with agendas, scheduled speakers from a
pre sign up list [follow the format used in earlier work of TF that have
used this method to have a ?sign up process? to get a speaking slot, hear
from those who sign up to speak, have this transcribed, and add it into the
record of feedback. Also use the written public comment process, of course,
as required by bylaws. 

 

This can be done in ½ day of the face to face meeting. 

 

[MSC comment: we know from experience that the public comment process has
worked best when it is augmented by the use of the conference call
augmentation. It would be a serious gap if the TF failed to take advantage
of the lessons learned in outreach. ]

 

 

 

10 October 2006:  Public comment period closes

 

10-12 October 2006 FACE TO FACE MEETING OF TF/location to be decided.

 

 

15 October /or thereabouts: TF discusses and reviews the draft final report
for accuracy details ? editorial type review. 

 

 

20 October 2006:  Release of Final Report to GNSO Council -- please note
section 10 of PDP guidelines which refers to Council deliberation and, if
the Council chooses, hearing of expert advisors

 

 

 [MSC Comments: The Council may decide also to identify and retain
independent experts. This is not to replace the ability of the TF to use
such resources. 

Mid October: Council should have a working session to discuss the report in
detail. This needs to be calendared as a separate Council session. We have a
full agenda at all Council meetings and will have other work to do in the
regular October Council meeting. 

 

 

30 October 2006:  GNSO Council meets in second working session to further
discuss Final Report.  Incorporation of any final commentary.  

1-3 November 2006  final review by Councilors and liaisons of the final
version of staff?s draft after incorporation of last inputs/edits from 30
October 2006 meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

3 November 2006:  Final Council Report to Board  sent to Board by Council
Chair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:21 AM
To: John Jeffrey; Marilyn Cade; Cubberley, Maureen ((CHT));
pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Denise Michel
Subject: RE: [council] RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10
August

 

John:

 

A few clarifications and comments to your posting are in order:

1.      This is not a new concern.  Many weeks ago, I made the following
public comments as part of both the DOC?s NOI process and the ICANN Strategy
Committee process.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnstransition/comments/dnstrans_
comment0609.htm

?GNSO Task Force on Contract Issues:  Another example of ICANN?s [bottom-up
policy making] processes not working is its disregard to date of the GNSO
policy making process regarding contract issues.  The GNSO has a Task Force
on contract issues for registry renewals.  As noted, ICANN recently has
posted for public information proposed renewal agreements for the .biz, org
and .info domain registries, all of which contain automatic renewal
provisions similar to those in the .com agreement. Thus, instead of waiting
for the outcome of the GNSO policy recommendations, ICANN staff has moved
forward to try to reach agreement on the same issues being considered by the
GNSO, thereby effectively circumventing that process.  This raises
particular concern with regard to the .org Registry Agreement, which does
not expire until 2009.?

2.      The .biz and .info agreements do not expire until 2007 and .org
expires in 2009.  There is no need to rush into signing these agreements
when important policy issues are being considered by ICANN?s policy arm.
This is especially true because according to the terms of the proposed
registry agreements, they cannot be altered by subsequent consensus policies
in most, if not all, of the issues being considered by the Task Force.  So
you are rushing to enter into essentially permanent contracts that contain
policy issues being considered by the Task Force that can?t be changed by
Consensus Policy.  A highly questionable endeavor if you believe in ICANN?s
core values.

3.      There are, indeed, policy issues being considered by the Task Force.
Whether ICANN should enter into registry agreements with automatic renewal
provisions, for example, is a policy decision.  Whether a dominant registry
operator should pay ICANN more, less, or the same in a per-name fee than a
non-dominant registry operator is a policy decision.  Whether price caps are
appropriate for registries without market power is a policy decision.
Cognizant of the fact that ICANN?s policy arm is specifically looking at
policy issues, why would you recommend that ICANN enter into agreements with
provisions that can?t be changed via Consensus Policy without waiting to see
the results of the process?  It?s baffling.  

4.      How I wish you would put more time and effort into assisting the PDP
process by providing legal advice to the Task Force to facilitate the
process so it is completed in a timely manner, rather than working on
circumventing the process by pushing the premature execution of permanent
contracts and impeding the progress of the Task Force.  How about
recommending some independent experts or materials to provide advice on
antitrust and other issues?  How about providing information to Task Force
members in a timely manner when requested?  Cooperating with the Task Force
to help reach consensus would make ICANN a better, stronger, and more
capable organization.  Is that such a pipe dream?

Thanks.

Jon Nevett

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Jeffrey
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