RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Rapporteur groups A & B reports. PDPFeb06 task force call 2 November 19:00 UTC

["Ute Decker" <Ute.Decker@xxxxxxxx>]

I may not be able to call in today, so here is my input at least as far as the 
questions raised by group A's report are concerned (additional to the input I 
made to the rapporteur group that is already reflected in Marilyn's report). 

On 1 a) A policy guiding renewal

Renewal expectancy and time frame:  I think the two issues are closely related 
and the decision on one will influence the other - hence should be looked at 
together.  As you know, the IPC is in favour of presumptive renewal as now 
defined in group A's report. (A registry with good performance in full 
compliance with its contractual obligations should be able to expect renewal.) 

The commercially reasonable term to renewal remains yet to be determined.  A 
term of 10-20 years to the first renewal seems awfully long, mitigating the 
positive effects of a term limitation and renewal procedure.  A term between 5 
and 10 years would be both preferable and also commercially reasonable, in 
particular if renewal was presumed, and encompass nothing more than a 
performance review (that should really not throw up anything different from 
ICANN's compliance program run as a matter of routine).

And we would of course be opposed to a long term (e.g. 10y +), that may be 
associated with a renewal involving a commercial rebid process.
 

On 5 Uses of registry data

In general, it seems odd to discuss whether or not to have another TF on use of 
registry data at large, including data related to WHOIS.  Should that 
discussion (proposed by the NCUC) be limited to the use of traffic data?

Re. 5a:  Again, this should be a policy regarding the use of registry data as 
far as traffic data is concerned.  Unless this is limited to traffic data, we 
would have to think how else to avoid overlaps and conflicts with WHOIS related 
policy.  

As we discuss elements for such a policy I am foremost concerned to ensure that 
(established and new) uses of registry traffic data are subject to review - 
e.g. along the lines of the review process for new registry services (which I 
believe currently does not cover use of registry data).  


Best wishes
Ute
  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 02 November 2006 10:53
To: pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Rapporteur groups A & B reports. PDPFeb06 task force 
call 2 November 19:00 UTC

[To: pdp-pcceg-feb06[at]gnso.icann.org]

Attached please find the two final reports from Marilyn Cade's 
Rapporteur Group A, and Jon Nevett's Rapporteur Group B which will be 
the subject of discussion at the task force meeting later on today.

Time:
11:00 LA, 14:00 Washington DC., 16:00 Buenos Aires,  19:00 UTC, London,
20:00 Brussels,  21:00 Athens, 08:00 Wellington Friday 3 November

Please let me know if you need a dial-in number resent.

Thank you,
Kind regards,

Glen


-- 
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org