ICANN Email Archives: [pdp-pcceg-feb06]

ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[pdp-pcceg-feb06]

<<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>>

[pdp-pcceg-feb06] Re: [pdpfeb06-wg1] Final working draft from Rapporteur for Group A/still taking edits from Group A members

To: dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx, pdpfeb06-wg1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Re: [pdpfeb06-wg1] Final working draft from Rapporteur for Group A/still taking edits from Group A members
From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:23:43 -0400

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>Dear Danny</P>
<P>would you do me a favor and ensure that your constituency sees this post? I do 
want them to know that I appreciate your work, and their work, including their recent 
submission. </P>
<P>I attempted to capture an option that could encompass the NCUC views, and seem to have failed 
in my effort. Your points and the effort taht teh NCUC have put forward are a significant contribution 
to the work of the TF.&nbsp; I'd suggest that&nbsp;you could post a suggested option that is 
your preferred option, picking up the issues that you raise, and it can be included in the report as 
submitted by the NCUC, but put forward to the TF, along with the other options, if you think you can 
provide it today... . I know we have limited time, but I'm sure that AVri would welcome seeing you 
submit something as an option to discuss. If it is later, let's ask Avri, but I'd support having it 
discussed at the same time, as one of the options. You would need to submit it in writing of course. 
And it would&nbsp;be discussed at the time that the TF meets. </P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>thanks to you and the NCUC for your ongoing work on these topics. </P>
<P>Marilyn Cade, Rapporteur for Group A</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 
0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif">
<HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1>

<DIV></DIV>From:  Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> To:  Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, pdpfeb06-wg1@xxxxxxxxx CC:  'PDPfeb06' <pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject:  Re: [pdpfeb06-wg1] Final working draft from Rapporteur for Group A/still taking edits from Group A members Date:  Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:09:45 -0700 (PDT) >Marilyn, > >As you are aware, a debate has suddenly emerged in >both PDP groups as to the definition of the term >"renewal expectancy"; namely, whether it implies a >competitive rebid. > >As the debate is still unsettled, I would be inclined >to state that I believe that the NCUC could not at >this time support the definition you have put forward. > > >It would be of value to ask whether certain factors >must be present prior to triggering a rebid scenario, >or if such rebids will always be automatic, or even if >they will always be necessary. > >For example, an unsponsored registry operator could be >in complete compliance with all contractual >requirements and yet the registry's total >domains-under-management might be horribly low to the >point that the global Internet community would be >within its rights to request the benefits that might >accrue with the management services offered by a >different sponsoring organization. > >On the other hand, if the registry operator is in >contract compliance and there are no ancillary issues >that have arisen with respect to performance or >growth, then moving to an automatic rebid would be >counter-intuitive, a waste of human resources and >energy, and ultimately would serve relatively very >little purpose (as the element of incumbancy with a >proven track record would most often favor a decision >leading to renewal if weighed against a sponsorship >counteroffer that merely proposed essentially similar >services with a lower price as the primary >differentiating factor). > >We regret that current timelines preclude further >discussion on these matters. > >We look forward to supporting the continued work of >the Task Force. > >Best regards, >Danny > > > >--- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Dear colleuges, I have taken the recommendations, > > and the discussion and > > tried to create a document that can be used for the > > discussion at the Task > > Force level. Glen is preparing a short document that > > shows the members of > > both Rapporteur Groups and their in person > > attendance at the meetings; > > however, it is important to remember that the > > purpose of the Rapporteur > > Groups was to advance work and put forward draft > > recommendations to finally > > and further discuss at the Task Force level. The > > document pasted below is > > drawn from the discussions [you can find transcripts > > of all the Group A > > calls in the archieves], the materials provided by > > staff, and contributions > > of members of the Rapporteur Group. > > > > Thanks to everyone, especially  the NCUC for a > > further elaborated updated > > contribution of their positions. other members of > > the Group A who dedicated > > their energy and brainpower to the effort, as well > > as the Rapporteur of > > Group B and the chair of the TF who participated ex > > officioAnd thanks to > > Glen, Liz, Dan, and Denise who provide ongoing > > support to the work of the > > Rapporteurs. > > > > The document may receive further edits and > > clarification, or even additions > > form the members of the Group A in the next 24 > > hours. > > > > > > > > If someone has an extensive addition that can't be > > accommodated or > > integrated, I would propose to add it as a minority > > opinion and have it > > presented at the full TF meeting at the appropriate > > time. > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > Final working draft document > > > > Created October 26, 2006 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Policies for Contractual Conditions: > > > > Existing Top Level Domains > > > > Rapporteur Group A:  Working Materials > > > > A. > > >Background.................................................................. > > ...................................... 2 > > > > B. Term of Reference 1 - Registry Agreement > > Renewal........................................ 4 > > > > C.  Term of Reference 2 - Relationship between > > registry agreements and > > consensus policies       8 > > > > D. Term of Reference 5  --  Uses of registry > > >data.................................................. > > 10 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Rapporteur Group A used several documents as the > > basis for consideration, > > including staff's initial document entitled Policies > > for Contractual > > Conditions: Existing Top Level Domains Rapporteur > > Group A: Working > > Materials; the table from Annex 3 to PDP Feb06 > > Issues Report; the draft > > comparison of ICANN-registry agreements 20061009, > > the General Counsel's > > letter to Bruce Tonkin, Chair, GNSO Council 27 > > September 2006. Annex A: GNSO > > Policy Development Process is an additional resource > > to the Rapporteur Group > > A, and was provided by the Rapporteur.  The > > Rapporteur group also used the > > list of questions submitted to the TF and all expert > > materials provided by > > the staff. > > > > > > > > Background > > > > > > > > 1.       Group A is analyzing Terms of Reference 1, > > 2 and 5.  Group B is > > analyzing Terms of Reference 3, 4 and 6. > > > > 2.       There is some overlap of policy > > implications between the two > > Rapporteur Groups. Each Rapporteur has served ex > > officio as member of the > > other Rapporteur Group. > > > > 3.       The chair of the TF has served ex officio > > of the two Rapporteur > > groups. > > > > 4.       Transcripts have been provided for > > Rapporteur Group A. > > > > 5.       Expert Materials are found at GNSO working > > documents section at > > >http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pdp-feb-06-expert-materials.pdf. > > Other relevant > > documents provided by staff are part of the overall > > TF materials and are not > > listed in this report by the Rapporteur Group. > > > > 6.       The Rapporteur reviewed the expert > > materials, and members of the > > Rapporteur Group undertook their own individual > > review. > > > > 7.       Tuesday, October 24, 2006, was the final > > working conference call > > meeting of the Rapporteur Group A. > > > > 8.       Based on discussion of the draft > > recommendations, a straw poll, as > > taken during the call, supported by discussions > > during the calls, formed the > > basis for the report to the full Task Force, which > > was drafted by the > > Rapporteur.  In most situations, choices are > > presented on the > > recommendations.  In some cased, there was agreement > > on a recommendation. > > > > 9.       The Rapporteur Group met and eliminated and > > 'fine tuned' some of > > the options presented in earlier drafts during their > > final working call, > > 10/24/06. > > > > 10.   The draft report was prepared by the > > Rapporteur. Any written > > recommendations or minority reports received > > regarding this final working > > document will be included in the final report to the > > full Task Force. > > > > 11.   Note: a separate attachment prepared by the > > Secretariat documents > > participation in the calls of the Group; it also > > identifies other members > > who were following the work of the Rapporteur Group, > > but not able to join > > the working calls. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B. Term of Reference 1 - Registry Agreement Renewal > > > > > > > > > > 1a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy > > guiding renewal, and if > > so, what the elements of that policy should be. > > > > > > > > The majority of those who participated in the > > working >=== message truncated === > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com </BLOCKQUOTE></div></html>

<<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy