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

["Cubberley, Maureen \(CHT\)" <MCubberley@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn,

 

I see that our postings regarding the work plan crossed in the ether - I did 
not log on before composing my email.

 

We have both noted the absence of a F2F meeting in the schedule.

 

I have proposed scheduling the publication of the preliminary report and the 
call for public comment after the  f2f meeting (or a series of teleconference 
meetings to replace it if funding for a f2f is not available.)  My thinking is 
that we want the preliminary Report to be as comprehensive and close to a Final 
Report as possible, and to reflect expert input, some of which I assume we will 
hear and be able to discuss at a f2f meeting.

 

There are other variations between your posting and mine, but general direction 
is similar. 

 

On the issue of regular bi-weekly meetings, I have considered that, but so far, 
am not convinced that it is the best way to accomplish this TF's work.  I will, 
nonetheless, read your rationale carefully.

 

Thanks very much for your work on this.

 

Best regards,

Maureen

 

 

 

________________________________

From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 4:47 PM
To: 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

 

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto:mcubberley@xxxxxxxxx> 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Jeffrey

john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx