RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] proposed note to Council

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

Propose some changes and let's vote on them.  We need to move forward.
Here is a link to the comments I've posted on this issue.  

http://forum.icann.org/lists/biz-tld-agreement/msg00022.html

Thanks.

Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 7:44 AM
To: 'PDPfeb06'
Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] proposed note to Council


Hold on guys (Mawaki and Jon) 
The question posed by Maureen viz: 
< 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.

IS the ONLY question worth asking.
Anything less clear will allow the Board/staff to skirt around this
fundamental point.

The essence of ICANN is that the answer is YES.
If we get a NO, that starts a fundamental debate on:
a) the meaning of consensus policy
b) the bylaws
c) the rationale of GNSO weighted voting
d) the inclusion of registries within ICANN (as opposed to being only
contract partners of
ICANN).

We need this clarity now.

Philip