RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] GNSO PDP Feb 06: MOTION REQUIRED
Dear Members of the PDP Feb 06 Task Force, That which follows is an excerpt from my original e-mail of Wednesday, August 16, wherein I asked for a motion to approve a memo from me to Bruce requesting clarification on how our work relates to the renewal process for TLD contracts. The memo follows and is also attached in a Word file. May I please have a mover and seconder for this motion? Thank you. Best regards, Maureen ________________________________ From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:21 PM To: Liz Williams; pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: m.cubberley@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] GNSO PDP Feb 06: Proposed Work Plan - MOTION REQUIRED Importance: High ........................delete..................... We need three motions in total. In this email, I am asking for motion #3 3. Motion to approve TF Chair to write to Council Chair requesting clarification on how our work relates to the renewal process for TLD contracts. Could we please have a mover and seconder for the motion? Thank you. ( A copy of that memo is attached, and appears here.) Memo to Bruce Tonkin, Chair GNSO Council from Maureen Cubberley, Chair PDP Feb 06 Task Force Dear Bruce, During the Thursday, August 10th, 2006 PDP Feb 06 Task Force teleconference an issue of concern was raised by some of the Task Force members, and I proposed to make you aware of it by means of this memorandum, the purpose of which is to seek clarification from the Council and request that you to communicate the contents of this memorandum to the ICANN Board. On behalf of the Task Force, I am requesting clarification on how our work relates to the renewal process for gTLD contracts. The issue was raised in light of the renewal of the three gTLD Registry agreements .biz, .info, and .org, as announced by ICANN staff on July 28, and which is concurrent with the Task Force's work to determine the policy issues around renewal of existing agreements. The fundamental question is; Is it valid for the task force to set policy in parallel with the work of the ICANN staff to move forward on renewals? This is a question for the GNSO Council to consider. If the TF's recommendations lead to consensus policy that differs from contract wording will all current gTLDs contracts be changed retroactively as a result? If the answer to that question is 'no', the validity of the Task Force, and more directly, the GNSO as the policy development body is in question. It is important to note that these issues were raised by some members of the Task Force; however, there is not unanimity in the group's opinion. Another strong opinion supported the continuation of contract negotiation in parallel with the work of the Task Force. Thank you for your consideration. On behalf of the Task Force, I await your reply. Kind regards, Maureen ...delete.............. Attachment:
Memo to Bruce Tonkin.MC.01.doc
|