[pdp-pcceg-feb06] Response from ICANN Board chair with regard to the proposed .biz, .info and .org agreements

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Response from ICANN Board chair with regard to the
proposed .biz, .info and .org agreements

From: Chair, ICANN Board

To:  GNSO Council


20 November 2006

To GNSO Council Members:

As we approach the meeting in Sao Paulo, I wanted to briefly report to
you on Board discussions that have occurred during the past several
months - especially with regard to the proposed .biz, .info and .org
agreements.  I thought that a communication at this point would useful
given the amount of discussion that is taking place in many quarters
surrounding these agreements, registry agreements in general and the
domain markets.

The Board has paid careful attention to the discussions reported to us
of the GNSO Council members (and also among the constituency groups)
regarding the various gTLD agreements.  We have followed the progress of
the committee work on the PDP that discusses the terms of registry
agreements (the "Feb 06 PDP") and also the work occurring on the PDP for
new gTLDs (including the term of reference having to do with contractual
terms).  The Board appreciates that the GNSO is considering many complex
issues. Recognizing this, the Board asked staff to fund expert financial
analysis to examine the market and answer questions such as whether a
medium sized registry such as .org or .info has monopoly power under any
practical definition.

We have also read all the community comment concerning the recent
registry agreements.  The Board has engaged in many detailed discussions
that carefully considered exchanges on the council list and in on-line
forums.

We have also read, considered carefully and debated whether the GNSO
resolution that the vote on these latest registry agreements be
postponed should be adopted also as Board policy.

Our discussions lead me to a conclusion that a delay in a vote is not
justified by either a pending policy development process or awaiting
additional public comment.  ICANN is compelled to implement a
Board-approved consensus policy but is also compelled to carry on
business as new policy is being developed.  The timeline for approval of
the pending agreements cannot, in fairness to the parties, carry on up
to the last months of an existing agreement.  The process has to
conclude sometime before the termination date.

Given that the Board may vote against the presently proposed agreement
(and therefore additional time might be required to settle the issue), a
vote should be taken as soon as the Board has the information it feels
is required and is ready to vote on the proposals.

Having said that, there is no firm plan to taken a vote at the 22
November meeting.  As you know, the Board has scheduled and discussed
the proposed agreements at previous meetings.  At each meeting, in
response to Council and other discussion, the board opted for additional
time for consideration of comment and discussion of the proposed
agreements between the parties and to allow further public comment to be
heard and considered.  As a result, there have been changes made to the
proposed agreements.  Votes are not taken until there is a sense that
the Board is prepared to do so.  That sense is developed through
discussion on email lists and during meetings.

There may or may not be a vote on these agreements at the upcoming
meeting.

Neither outcome should be a surprise.  I wished to write, however, to
tell you that the Board (including me) consider input from the Council
carefully.  A conclusion that differs from council member advice does
not indicate the Board "ignored" the advice.  The Board receives inputs
from many sources and these inputs are frequently conflicting in their
character.  The Board is obligated to reach conclusions despite
variations in the recommendations it receives.  If the Board conclusions
differ from recommendations of the GNSO, it will be a consequence of
considering all advice received including that of the GNSO Council.

The Board looks forward to the conclusion of the Council's work on the
very important PDPs now underway.  Of course, the Board also continues
to be interested in your individual perspectives on these issues.
Please let Denise Michel know if there is any further information or
support required.  She will ensure that you are kept closely apprised of
our actions.

Sincerely,


Vint Cerf
ICANN Board Chair