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

["Jeffrey Eckhaus" <jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support the amended language below.
 
Jeff
 
 
________________________________

From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 10:36 AM
To: Philip Sheppard; PDPfeb06
Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] proposed note to Council - revised
 
I agree with Philip and propose that we use the following slightly
amended language for the letter.  Thanks.  Jon
 
 
 
"Dear Bruce,
During the Thursday, August 10th, 2006 PDP Feb 06 Task Force (TF)
teleconference, a concern was raised by many 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 communicate the contents of this memorandum to the ICANN Board.

 
I am requesting clarification on how our work relates to the renewal
process for gTLD contracts. The issue was raised in light of the
proposed renewals of three gTLD registry agreements with .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 Task Force questioned whether
it was appropriate for the ICANN staff to move forward with registry
renewals that cannot be altered by subsequent Consensus Policies while
the Task Force is working on contract renewal policy in parallel.  
 
The question from the TF to Council is: 
Given the existence of ICANN by-law annex A Clause 13, would Council
please confirm to the Task Force that should the Task Force's
recommendations lead to Consensus Policy (as described in Clause 13)
that differs from contract wording, then all current gTLDs contracts
would indeed be changed retroactively as a result?  If not, the Task
Force is looking for guidance on how to proceed. 
 
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, and there
was one opinion from the Registry Constituency in support of the
continuation of contract negotiation in parallel with the work of the
Task Force. 
 
Given the Board meeting of September 13 it may be prudent to have a
reply before then. Thank you for your consideration.  On behalf of the
Task Force, I await your reply.
 
Kind regards,
Maureen"
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 8:49 AM
To: 'PDPfeb06'
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] proposed note to Council - revised
 
 
On reflection we should seek to AFFIRM the existing role of consensus
policy (not ask what
we already have!), so suggest this amendment:
 
"Dear Bruce,
During the Thursday, August 10th, 2006 PDP Feb 06 Task Force (TF)
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 communicate the contents of this memorandum to the
ICANN Board.  
 
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 TF wondered was it valid for theTF to set
policy in parallel with
the work of the ICANN staff to move forward on renewals. 
 
The question from the TF to Council is: 
Given the existence of ICANN by-law annex A Clause 13, would Council
please confirm to the
TF that should the TF's recommendations lead to Consensus Policy (as
described in Clause 13)
that differs from contract wording, then all current gTLDs contracts
would indeed be changed
retroactively as a result?  
 
(I should note that while the other members of the TF present shared
these concerns, there
was an opinion expressed by the Registry Constituency representative
that supported
the continuation of contract negotiation in parallel with the work of
the Task Force.)
 
Given the Board meeting of September 13 it may be prudent to have a
reply before then. Thank
you for your consideration.  On behalf of the Task Force, I await your
reply.
 
Kind regards,
Maureen"