RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] GNSO PDP Feb 06: MOTION REQUIRED

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support Mawaki's changes.  Thanks.  Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:56 PM
To: Cubberley, Maureen (CHT); PDPfeb06
Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] GNSO PDP Feb 06: MOTION REQUIRED

Maureen,

Sorry, I started musing on a few edits some days ago but got caught
in some other tasks, and now here I am... Please note, the following
is a rather quick draft, so if you agree on the substance and the
overall articulation, you may improve the linguistique and/or
diplomatic quality if needed. The paras. not mentioned in the
following suggested changes should remain the same, or at your
discretion (in order to balance the whole, if need be.) Then, I'd be
happy to move on the motion.

You wrote:

> 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.

My humble opinion is:

Giving the obvious answer to the question, I suggest we don't ask
this (not even as a rhetorical one,) and am suggesting the
replacement of those two paras. by the following three:

It is not excluded that the TF's recommendations may lead to
consensus policy that will differ from the wording of of current (and
renewed) gTLD contracts. Given the unlikelihood that those contracts
will change retroactively as a result of the possible new policy,
members of the TF have raised the question of the relevance and the
ligitimacy for negotiating and renewing at this point of time
registry contracts that may be impacted by an ongoing PDP. 

More particularly, many TF members are concerned by the launch of the
negotiation of those of the gTLD contracts  that are due to expire
several years after the due date of completion of the relevant PDP.
They feel that in those conditions, the validity of the Task Force,
and more directly, the GNSO as the policy development body is in
question.

Therefore, the TF would like to request the GNSO Council and/or the
Board to a clarification as to the relationship of this TF's work and
the current renewal process, and what should be, de jure, the scope
of the outcome of the  PDP-Feb'06 with regard to any registry
contract, either new or to be renewed.


And for the following last para in your draft:

> 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.

I suggest to replace with:

It is important to note that while most members of the Task Force
share these concerns, there is not unanimity in the group's opinion
as to the way forward, and there was an opinion that supported the
continuation of contract negotiation in parallel with the work of the
Task Force. 

</end of edits>

My two cents,

Mawaki


--- "Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)" <MCubberley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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..............
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>