[pdp-pcceg-feb06] Nnote to Council - revised, proposed and seconded

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

Jon, thank you for formally proposing this text to the TF.
I second.
Maureen, now this is proposed and seconded as it is an admin matter I suggest 
usual practise
does not necessitate a formal TF vote.
I believe you are now at liberty to transmit this to Council.
Philip
--------------------------------------
"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"