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